Life Jackets will be compulsory on Central Coast, Lake Macquarie, Pt. Stephens.

[SquidMarks]

I think i may have answered my own question with a bit of googling...

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/rfsa2016199/s4.html

"

 In this Act, a
"high risk rock fishing location" is a naturally occurring rock platform or other rock formation exposed to ocean swell within a declared area.

"

 

Oh dear.......

 

Its as i feared.... any naturally occurring rock platform exposed to swell............. its essentially ANY rock platform 

Edited February 18, 2020 by SquidMarks

[61 crusher]

8 minutes ago, Time22 said:

Terrigal haven and boat ramp are both on the list of high risk areas. Surely an "experienced person" could tell the difference between here and Snapper Point. 

I’m surprised that the boat ramp is part of the high  risk area & since it’s used for Boat launching, yes it can get a surge happening particularly in N to Ne swell but then again it is a man made structure & can be slippery & should be periodically gurneyed by council or the powers that be, & Yet as we speak the powers that be are removing massive kelp build up on the haven beach but the ramp had a pile of kelp that has been slowly dispersing by wave action & individuals trying to launch & retrieve for fear of not making it out yet nothing has been done & there is still a fair bit of kelp on the ramp (a quick gurney would make it safer). Sorry I digressed I also agree with the statement of the haven rocks which can cop swell over them being “an Experienced person” But there are people out there that don’t have that experience or unfortunately common sense  & don’t understand the inherent dangers & put fish ahead of there own lives, the old saying the minority ruin it for the majority & that’s one of the major reasons this law has been introduced 

[Admis]

so is this rule currently active? I'm wanting to go fishing in the morning and I really don't want to walk around with a life jacket when I know what I'm doing. I'm talking about port stephens I thought it was July 1st that it comes into effect but correct me if I'm wrong thanks. 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Admis

[kingie chaser]

12 hours ago, Time22 said:

The law should apply to all people who go onto rockplatform to be fair to all. The law is only for fisherman which is discrimination.

Yes pretty much the point I have been trying to make.

Not a hypothetical a reality scenario-so your on a platform& have a rod in your hand, you need to wear a life jacket, someone comes up & stands next to you with his kids & dog & starts having a conversation, no lifejacket needed.

 

If everyone(corporations & government) is going around promoting inclusivity & fairness in policy then how is this a good example of doing so? 

 

Seems that fisherman are targeted where it should really be a blanket rule for all!

 

IF I were a rock fisherman which I am not I would absolutely wear a jacket, but it should be a choice, especially if others aren't required to be wearing one!

 

Their should be a sign in these area saying 'no one past this point without a life vest' if you are going to be fair dinkum about it!!

 

Just my 2 cents.

Edited February 18, 2020 by kingie chaser

[antonywardle]

@Admis I've not seen it written that it has come into affect yet. Maybe take one with you. Most of the links that I've seen posted are to news websites and nothing government. The one government link I found  implies that it in now in force and nothing about a warning period, Watersafety NSW

 

[PaddyT]

OK ive written many times on this subject and will again explain my position- there is an opinion in the general community and it seems in certain members of the fishing community that rockfishing is a terrribly dangerous activity and that rockfishos should be protected from themselves ie lifejackets (thats now- i see access restrictions coming down the track in my crystal ball-read on). Ive rockfished since i was 13-generally on reasonably easy to access spots as im not a fan of roping in-done the whole LBG thing for many years and only once had a near miss- which was totally my own stupidity.

In Australia there are 250 drownings year in year out (the best source for this is Royal Life Saving-not Surf Livesaving) , The stats are put out every year by Royal Life and they show that year in year out 10 or 11 unfortunate folk die rockfishing -IN ALL OF AUSTRALIA-this is equal to diving (which no one seems to be having a moral panic about) , and far below deaths in the surf-about 50 every year and well below drownings in rivers, creeks and streams which from memory is about 100 (sorry dont have current stats directly in front of me). The Royal Life Saving Society dont have rockfishing in their top 5 areas of concern and to my knowledge never have. So the problem is overblown-having said that i have nothing but sympathy for anyone who loses a family member through drowning. I ran a swim school for 15 years and dedicated my life to teaching kids to swim so they wouldnt become statistics!

The whole wearing a lifejacket thing is merely an attempt to restrict access- witness places like the Haven at Terrigal above-ridiculous (mind you there is a campaign being run to stop fishing their altogether by the local Greens). Lifejackets and any other safety measures should remain a personal choice , but to help anyone with their personal choices heres my list on deciding whether or not rockfishing is a good idea for you.

1. Can i swim 200M in a high energy environment eg the surf?

2. Do i look at the weather and understand it?

3. CAn I read the waves and surf?

4. Do I have correct footwear and understand the rocksurfaces and weed types at my chosen spot?

5 Am i coordinated enough not to fall in ?

if you answer no to any of those questions then rockfishing aint for you, personally if i thought conditions were such that i needed a lifejacket then i simply wouldnt fish- and thats the bottom line-it shouldnt be legislated because A_you cant legislate for stupidity and B and you cant legislate for ignorance, you can only educate.

Feel free to discuss!

 

[Houdini]

I thinks it is silly that individual councils implement these and other rules wholly for their own areas of responsibility.

For the life jacket rules, take Randwick council (you must wear a life jacket) and Waverly council (no lifejacket) areas for example.

The councils share a common boarder at aptly named Boundary St, their areas of control for wearing a life jacket is an imaginary line extending from this street down and over the rocks.

So we are down to an imaginary line now.

If you walk from the Randwick side and then fish on the Waverly side have you committed an offence?

One of these rocks is safe to fish off the other is dangerous? 

 

 

[PaddyT]

3 hours ago, Houdini said:

I thinks it is silly that individual councils implement these and other rules wholly for their own areas of responsibility.

For the life jacket rules, take Randwick council (you must wear a life jacket) and Waverly council (no lifejacket) areas for example.

The councils share a common boarder at aptly named Boundary St, their areas of control for wearing a life jacket is an imaginary line extending from this street down and over the rocks.

So we are down to an imaginary line now.

If you walk from the Randwick side and then fish on the Waverly side have you committed an offence?

One of these rocks is safe to fish off the other is dangerous? 

 

 

 

[nutsaboutfishing]

20 hours ago, Time22 said:

The law should apply to all people who go onto rockplatform to be fair to all. The law is only for fisherman which is discrimination. Why don't the people who go to take photographs need to wear them or the general public just going for a walk. It's the same with kayaks vs paddle boards a person can paddle around next to a kayak all day but only the kayaker needs the jacket more discrimination. Personally I think the correct shoes are more important that a lifejacket(a device to make body recovery easier) 

I think the difference is fishos spend hours on the rocks and tourist spend much less time. Fishos always stand near the edge, while tourist don't necessarily do the same. Therefore going by exposure time a fishos are in more danger of being swept in

[marks1984]

I think rather than say e.g. snapper rocks, avoca rocks..... etc etc lets put a blanket over most if not all of the rock fishing spots were people can be takin and say hey you want to fish wear a life jacket. I can see it from a safety side of things but due to a few bad eggs has I would not say wreaked it but made it for what it is now for us 

[Rebel]

OK,

The Councils did not put the rules in place. The NSW Government did with the advice of the Water Police etc etc. Instead of moaning and  groaning contact your Council, like I did or contact your local member and complain. You are waisting your time beating up Fishraider they can't help you.

Kingchaser, I have a brilliant background and a lot of contacts and I do my homework. Face the facts Life jackets are complusory for Rock Fishing.

Cheers.

[Houdini]

17 hours ago, Rebel said:

OK,

The Councils did not put the rules in place. The NSW Government did with the advice of the Water Police etc etc. Instead of moaning and  groaning contact your Council, like I did or contact your local member and complain. You are waisting your time beating up Fishraider they can't help you.

Kingchaser, I have a brilliant background and a lot of contacts and I do my homework. Face the facts Life jackets are complusory for Rock Fishing.

Cheers.

If this is the case how do you explain the difference between Randwick and Waverly.

Clearly one council adopted the rules and one didn't.

Or are you saying on advice from the water police etc etc(whom ever that is) the waverly side of the imaginary line is safer than the Randwick side.

I don't think any of this discussion is beating up Fishraider. 

We are, if anything expressing our difference of opinion and experience ( the things I think make the world a wonderful place to be).

 

[PaddyT]

yep more stupidity , the lifejacket rules wont reduce the deaths-my prediction is this-rockfishing deaths will remain steady at 10 or 11 for the next few years-and the wonderful ""expert authorities"" Like our mate above will proclaim that sadly lifejackets isnt working and therefore we will have to ban rockfishing in certain places-it will be lockouts by stealth and under the guide of ""safety"". To many folk telling other folk how to live their lives in this country these days!! Shame i dont have a brilliant background-obviously 15 years of working in water safety dont count.

[Rebel]

Let's put this to bed. The Law has spoken. If you want it changed you know what to do.

Cheers.

[Rebel]

Hi Houdini,

I made a phone call to clear up your question. Ranwick and Waverley Councils.  

Ranwick opted to have Life Jackets, Waverley didn't, at the moment.

Cheers.

[letsgocrabbing]

If Waverly did they would have to make it compulsory for all patrons to  Bondi Beach to wear them, after all the show claims 1200 rescues per year on that 1 beach. Wonder what the statistics are for all their beach goer rescues in that shire compared to  rock fishos rescues. Let' s start a campaign compulsory lifejackets for all  beach swimmers!!! But buy shares in lifejacket producers first

[PaddyT]

4 hours ago, letsgocrabbing said:

If Waverly did they would have to make it compulsory for all patrons to  Bondi Beach to wear them, after all the show claims 1200 rescues per year on that 1 beach. Wonder what the statistics are for all their beach goer rescues in that shire compared to  rock fishos rescues. Let' s start a campaign compulsory lifejackets for all  beach swimmers!!! But buy shares in lifejacket producers first

Yep, can only imagine ""Rock Fisherman Rescue"" would be a boring show-as i said this is driven by anti fishos and unfortunately some fishos are aiding and abetting them -Its an access restriction pure and simple .

[PaddyT]

PK-that bloke would of been killed lifejacket or not-I can think of many situations where id prefer not to have one on. As i said before compulsory LJ's will not reduce the fatailities at all-and this will become an excuse for banning  access. If the wonderful knowledgable authority types out there really wanted to reduce drowning they need to concentrate on the places and situations where big numbers of fatailites occur-re read my post-Royal Life Saving dont and never have regarded rockfishing as a major area of concern-some councils dont want the ""great unwashed"" fishing on ""their "" rocks-this is a way to lower participation and eventually a ban. And frankly Surf Life Saving arent exactly friendly to fishos either. As ive said all too many times-if conditions were such that i felt a LJ would make me safer-then thats a time and place i would NOT go fishing. Ive seen two really bad accidents on the rocks -both involved incorrect footwear-LJ'would of made no difference to either incident-but proper footwear would of. Forcing folk to wear lifejackets is a bit like removing speed limits on the road but forcing everyone to sit in a car wearing a sumo suit.

[Rebel]

Hi,

Come to the Central Coast rock fishing and just see the Tourists, no life jackets, no spiked boots , do not understand English. This is a major problem and it will go on. And they all seem to head to Catherine Hill Bay or Snapper point.

Cheers.