Browns Rock report - with a word of warning.

[notoriousTASH]

There's one major reason I'm writing this report up, being the Rockfishing Safety Act. Today was a great day, aside from the power tripping copper I had encountered right at the end of my day, which I'll get to. 

Not much action today at Browns Point but it's a beautiful spot if you haven't tried it. Be aware though, there is a bit of a hike to get down there. About a 10 min uphill/downhill, uneven ground bush walk. If you're not the fittest person in the world, the way down to Browns Point is pretty bad but it's worse on the way back up lol. The reward though, is that the water is nice and clear (looks great for a swim, a few folks came and went throughout the day for a dip) and it's not terribly snaggy, though there is quite a bit of weed and rocks close to the shore, so if you're casting further out, you'll be sweet. 

Mrs and I had two rods out each, two rods on the more heavy duty side and two light set ups. Both our big rods got nothing. Tried garfish, mullet fillets, pilchards and squid and nothing was touched with one exception - when I reeled in after casting out about 45 minutes prior with half a squid (head end) on double snelled hooks, I reel it in only to find that the squid, plus the hooks, plus a good chunk of my leader were gone. I'll take a safe bet and say a shark came across it and couldn't help himself. 

Our small rods is where the action was. We could see about 2m out from where we were standing on the rocks that there were some biggish, black coloured fish swimming around. They were interested in our bait and we did get quite a few pecks but nothing big enough to be able to hook em. I was about to reel my small rod in to change rigs after having it sitting in the water for about 15 minutes with a decent chunk of squid on the hook when BAM a huge hit. I pick up my rod and pray to the fishing god's that whatever it was hit again and they answered my prayers. Another big hit and I got it hooked. Put up a great fight, particularly because I was using light tackle. When it started getting closer to the surface I saw what I thought was a luderick. It kind of didn't surprise me at that point because I have caught a Luderick once before on squid (at Nambucca Heads). This fish kept trying to win the fight by going in to the weeds and under the rocks, fortunately the Mrs had the net ready to go and we managed to land a very nice fish which was later identified, thanks to my friends on fishraider, as a black drummer - my first. Measured in at 35cm and had a great weight to it. 

Mrs ended up catching two today on the light tackle. First up was a Port Jackson that was heavy as shit and I'd say around the 70cm mark. I was blessed (NOT - I'm terrified of sharks) with getting it in the net, which it barely fit in to. Took a happy snap and off she went to live another day. I'm curious if anyone has ever tried eating one? Reason I ask is when I was at Airlie Beach earlier this year I saw guys targeting and dispatching grey reef sharks to eat. 

But I digress. Next fish was a weird little red one and wouldn't have a bloody clue what it was but it was returned to the water after a timely struggle in removing the hook from her mouth (we try our best not to throw fish back in with hooks left in their mouths and avoid it as best we can). Threw her back in and she was floating on the surface. We felt so bad, thinking we should have just cut the line, but fortunately she got enough water/air through the gills and after 30 secs swam back down to live another day (and possibly lay her eggs, we think she may have been pregnant).

 

**Word of Warning**

Onto to my point about the PoPo and this, frankly puzzling, law regarding life jackets in Randwick council. 

Now I understand the good intentions behind this law. I understand many lives have been lost when anglers have gone rock fishing. Shit, there was yet another death just yesterday in La Perouse (though the angler was wearing a life jacket ?). You'll find where I find issue with the laws near the bottom of this post.

I, as you can see in the picture, was wearing a life jacket. Mr Senior Constable Power Trip comes along and yells down at first the Mrs (who was not wearing her jacket, though she did have it and I told her numerous times to put it on) and says he wants to speak to her and she quickly pops over to the backpack to get her license and life jacket. I shake my head and have a chuckle because I couldn't wait to turn around later on and say to her "I told you so!" (it's a rare opportunity). I go back to casting. 

THEN I hear this guy yell out "Sir? SIR?!" I turn around (this isn't the first time it's happened, it doesn't bother me) and say "sorry, are you speaking to me?" and he says "yeah I'm speaking to you. It appears you aren't wearing a proper life vest."

I look at this guy and think "are you not seeing this big, blue, ugly arse, f*** off vest I'm wearing or are you indeed seeing it and thinking I'm wearing it as some sort of fashion statement?" 

I bite my tongue and say "what's the matter with the vest I'm wearing, sir?" he says "it probably doesn't meet the Australian Standards. Check it for the five ticks. I said "I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that that was a requirement, the signs just say 'life jacket'". 

Now this is where it gets funny, and probably got my arse out of a $100 ticket. I'm facing him and take my vest off to check and see if it has these ticks on it. He then notices "the girls" which where well hidden by this stupid vest and says "oh... I'm sorry... ma'am". I say "it's all good, and no my vest doesn't have the ticks. I genuinely didn't know about it" he let's me and Mrs off with a warning, even though he had just handed out fines to 4 other people nearby us. 

Where my issues lie with the laws are this:

1. Signage around the area simply states "Wear a life jacket when fishing. It's the law." Nowhere does it say Australian standards. Now I'm not a lawyer, but I do know how to interpret law as it is part of my job. The council cannot expect people to read the Rock Fishing Safety Act 2016 and read, at the very bottom of the act, that is states the jacket must be of Australian Standards. The very first section and subsequent subsection states people must wear life jackets, which is where I'd assume most people would stop reading the law, because it seems very black and white. It is not until you read down to either the last or very last section where it states Australian standards. If I were fined, I would've happily taken it to court and contested it and I believe I would've had a good chance at winning.

2. This is what really bothered me about this law and where I am quite tempted in making submissions to the council and subsequent lawmakers to have changes made to the law, purely out of unfairness. There was a couple, sitting literally right next to me on the rocks, with no life jacket but weren't fishing - no worries. But because I am there with a fishing rod, I can get a fine for not wearing a life jacket. How does that make any sense? If I was swimming and had my rod out, how could they justify fining me? Would they expect me to swim with a life jacket on? These are issues within the law that, in my opinion, need to be reviewed. 

Nevertheless, if you guys are out fishing on the rocks, where ever you are, please wear a life jacket for your own safety. And if you don't want a $100 ticket, ensure that they meet the Australian standards. I'll be purchasing some for myself soon. The ones we had today went in the bin. 

Apologies for the rant and if it is inappropriate for the fishing report but I did want to voice this with you guys because it seems now the police are dead set on enforcing this law now. If you guys reckon I should add my warning to another part of the site, please refer me to the appropriate section. 

All in all a good day, though I can't say it ended on a high note.  

Happy fishing to you all and stay safe out there. 

 

[connico]

Fish looks like a big grinner. Police have fined a few around me as well on Cape Banks. Heard about the poor bloke that drowned just recently, really feel sorry for the wife she was there with him.

Anyways the fish your holding is a Pig, aka a drummer, ask a rock black fish. It is not a luderick. Nice catch to its fantastic eating!

Tight lights

[wazatherfisherman]

Great post glad you didn't get in trouble- you've brought up some good points, especially in relation to others there but not fishing- where is the 'fairness'? Nice Rock Blackfish (aka Black Drummer or 'Pig' as said above) other fish looks like a Ling ('Beardie') also good eating

[antonywardle]

Great write up and nice drummer. If your mrs wasn't fishing then she doesn't need a life jacket which makes the law completely pointless. She isn't allowed to help you either, 

 

As you say, good intentions but not very well thought out.

[oldschoolrods]

Here is a good write up about the life jackets in Randwick 

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

fines only started in June this year, so they must be enforcing it now!

[fragmeister]

Hey Tash, nice report.

Yes, the whole life jacket thing is very frustrating - well done though on avoiding the fine!

As far as I am aware Port Jackson Sharks have nothing going for them in the eating department but one of their main foods is Urchins so they probably help keep their number down - probably better left in the water to do their job than end up a very average meal or two. Many believe they are a protected species but I am confident they are not.

There was an old bloke across the road from me who reckoned their skin was so abrasive that if he caught one , before throwing it back, he would run his knife down the shark side like he was using a kitchen steel, to put an edge back on the blade! (He was full of tall tales mind you!)

Cheers

Jim

 

[sam bros]

Great report, thanks for sharing

Don't think port jackson sharks are great in terms  of eating, i've been told you can barely get any meat off them. 

The drummer is very healthy, well done

I think you should write up to the council voicing your concerns, the more people that make a statement, the more likely they are to implementing a change.

[Hunkgarian]

I literally just checked my life jacket to ensure it is compliant. It has the 5 ticks.  I would've been so bloody pissed if it didn't, after all I bought it from a shop. 

[PaddyT]

Oh Here we go- the whole thing is revealing its true intentions, revenue raising and an eventual excuse for banning rockfishing altogether- i just read the report that the guy who drowned was described as a "poor swimmer". NSW - lets ban and regulate everything!

[wazatherfisherman]

6 hours ago, oldschoolrods said:

Here is a good write up about the life jackets in Randwick 

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

fines only started in June this year, so they must be enforcing it now!

Thanks for posting the life jacket link

[tyrone07]

4 hours ago, PaddyT said:

Oh Here we go- the whole thing is revealing its true intentions, revenue raising and an eventual excuse for banning rockfishing altogether- i just read the report that the guy who drowned was described as a "poor swimmer". NSW - lets ban and regulate everything!

Would barely call it revenue raising, have a look at the coroners findings into a large number of rock fishing deaths around NSW I think it was published in 2016, has absolutely nothing to do with banning rock fishing. 

[notoriousTASH]

7 hours ago, Amatteroflight said:

I literally just checked my life jacket to ensure it is compliant. It has the 5 ticks.  I would've been so bloody pissed if it didn't, after all I bought it from a shop. 

Not only does it need those 5 ticks, it needs to meet a specified standard with those ticks. There are different levels of life jacket standards by the looks of things. I was perusing a shop and they had all different levels of standards and I have no idea which are higher or lower than the standard specified in the Act.  I'll read the legislation real quick and get back to you on exactly the standard the jacket needs to meet. 

[notoriousTASH]

OK so here are some screen shots of the Rock Fishing Safety Act 2016. I'll add a link too if anyone wishes to read the entire thing, it's only a small act (7 pages). The first screenshot is where, I'd assume, any reasonable person would stop reading because it tells you the offence and the penalty with that offence (Section 5). It says there, black and white, you, and anyone helping you, must wear a life jacket at all times while rock fishing. If you don't, it's an offence and the maximum penalty is 50 penalty units (1 penalty unit in NSW is $110 - so you're looking at $5,500 maximum)

However, when you get to the very bottom of the act, that's where it states specifically what type of life jacket must be worn and the standards it must meet. If you don't comply, it's a $100 fine. The standards are in the second screenshot and below:

*in relation to a child—meets performance level 100 or greater of Australian Standard AS 4758

*in any other case—meets performance level 50S or greater of Australian Standard AS 4758

It's up to us to now further research what the standards are for life jackets we buy to make sure they're at or greater than a level 50S, whatever the hell that is. 

here's a link to the act: https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/2016/66/sch1

[notoriousTASH]

1 hour ago, tyrone07 said:

Would barely call it revenue raising, have a look at the coroners findings into a large number of rock fishing deaths around NSW I think it was published in 2016, has absolutely nothing to do with banning rock fishing. 

Well, the legislation was put in place to help save lives. What's interesting though is that all monies collected from infringements/fines whatever are to go to the Department of Fisheries (this is also outlined in the Act)... So I suppose it's both in a sense. 

[Berleyguts]

AS4758? I’d just wear an inflateable belt PFD like this:

http://www.menacemarine.com.au/inflatable-life-jacket-pfd1-level-150-waist-belt

[nutsaboutfishing]

Great report, you two sure are a pair of dedicated fshos. With the bait you lost sounds more like leather jackets than a shark.

[notoriousTASH]

1 hour ago, Berleyguts said:

AS4758? I’d just wear an inflateable belt PFD like this:

http://www.menacemarine.com.au/inflatable-life-jacket-pfd1-level-150-waist-belt

The one in the link says it's AS4758 but where the confusion for me is that I don't know if "150N" is of higher or lower rating than 50S. See what I mean??

[Berleyguts]

The higher the number, the higher the level of flotation. Level 100 or higher is required on open waters. Mine is a 150N and I bought it under the “new for old” exchange program at my local boat ramp. Here’s a link to the the PFD guidelines by RMS, although this won’t necessarily cover a local council initiative:

http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/maritime/safety-rules/safety-equipment/lifejackets.html

Me? I’d wear a 150N as a minimum, regardless of where I am fishing.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Berleyguts

[notoriousTASH]

10 hours ago, Berleyguts said:

The higher the number, the higher the level of flotation. Level 100 or higher is required on open waters. Mine is a 150N and I bought it under the “new for old” exchange program at my local boat ramp. Here’s a link to the the PFD guidelines by RMS, although this won’t necessarily cover a local council initiative:

http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/maritime/safety-rules/safety-equipment/lifejackets.html

Me? I’d wear a 150N as a minimum, regardless of where I am fishing.

Where I'm unsure is the letters... Is N higher than S?

[oldschoolrods]

This below link describes both 150n and 50s life jackets. That should help?

Read more at http://www.mysailing.com.au/news/choosing-the-right-pfd#gQkf3WQQfDs1zdP4.99

[PaddyT]

15 hours ago, tyrone07 said:

Would barely call it revenue raising, have a look at the coroners findings into a large number of rock fishing deaths around NSW I think it was published in 2016, has absolutely nothing to do with banning rock fishing. 

What ?10 -11 people per annum in the entire country- why wasnt there a coroners enquiry into Scuba Diving- cause the same number drown every year doing that! (not to mention a few more from heart attacks etc). This is a precurser to a ban, the number of drownings will not drop because of the lifejacket rules and parts of the coast will deemed -"too dangerous" .

[Captain Spanner]

1 hour ago, PaddyT said:

What ?10 -11 people per annum in the entire country- why wasnt there a coroners enquiry into Scuba Diving- cause the same number drown every year doing that! (not to mention a few more from heart attacks etc). This is a precurser to a ban, the number of drownings will not drop because of the lifejacket rules and parts of the coast will deemed -"too dangerous" .

To many people what you are saying sounds like a far fetched, paranoid conspiracy theory but I agree with you 100%. I have voiced this a few times and been told i'm ridiculous. The people campaigning against fishing are in for the long game and they aren't stupid (unfortunately). It is also only part of other agendas, we are just collateral damage in getting the vote of the uneducated that  think rec fishing lockouts will save the cute little furry fishies, turtles, whales and the one grey nurse shark that hasn't left the rave cave yet because he  has gone blind from the scuba dive camera flashes three sessions a day.

[PaddyT]

Yep , give them an inch in what seems like a reasonable idea and next thing you know- your good fishing spots are gone. This tactic happened in the GBRMP and a few other places along the coast too. 

[JonD]

Don't forget not only do they need the 5 ticks but they also need to be in date. If you have bought any manual or self inflating jackets you will need to carry an itemised receipt proving when you purchased it. 

Down here maritime, fisheries and the police all seem to work together, for everyones safety it might be best if we all move inland away from any water.

Familys down here on holiday are getting fined $250 per person for not wearing lifejackets even when in extremely shallow water. If we kayak out over the sandflats in 20-30cm of water chasing whiting we have to wear a lifejacket, If we head out on the same surf kayaks to play in the surf in the middle of Narooma bar with boat traffic, rocks and huge seas we don't need one. 

We enter from the rocks to fish and hunt lobsters, its hard getting down beneath the surface with a lifejacket on?

The comment about leaving your rod to go for a swim, would the line still be out ? as they would hit you with an unattended set line fine then as well.

[PaddyT]

12 minutes ago, JonD said:

Don't forget not only do they need the 5 ticks but they also need to be in date. If you have bought any manual or self inflating jackets you will need to carry an itemised receipt proving when you purchased it. 

Down here maritime, fisheries and the police all seem to work together, for everyones safety it might be best if we all move inland away from any water.

Familys down here on holiday are getting fined $250 per person for not wearing lifejackets even when in extremely shallow water. If we kayak out over the sandflats in 20-30cm of water chasing whiting we have to wear a lifejacket, If we head out on the same surf kayaks to play in the surf in the middle of Narooma bar with boat traffic, rocks and huge seas we don't need one. 

We enter from the rocks to fish and hunt lobsters, its hard getting down beneath the surface with a lifejacket on?

The comment about leaving your rod to go for a swim, would the line still be out ? as they would hit you with an unattended set line fine then as well.

Only problem with moving Jon is that there are a lot more drownings on inland waterways- oh wait a minute, maybe that means they will focus on what is actually a problem- Nanny state strikes again.