So who had a clue...

[ducky]

Exactly greggo.

The proposed rules come at a minor cost to the rowers. A small price to pay for knocking out all fishos from the waterways. You can bet your left nut these rowing clubs were consulted with and rules designed around impacting them the least.

The fact that high level boating and fishing interest groups weren’t consulted with suggests there’s been a solid attempt to sneak through with these rules.

[cobby]

Did any of the people who fish the CBD know of the
Consulation period at all Greg?

Apparently BIAV only stumbled on it late thursday/early friday, and no one else seems to have known a thing until Chappy put something up on Facebook Friday arvo. MSV did a good job of hiding such an important bit of public consultation process....

Like Ducky said, rowing groups are inconvienced in the absolute slightest, the cruise businesses aren't affected, and the proposals make fishing the Yarra from the Bolte all the way to Dights next to absolutely pointless. When the group that is over represented in avoidable collisions and near misses, also contains lots of people with high up leverage, is also set to get out of this relatively unscathed it doesn't take Einstein to work out who is behind this push

[Bugatti]

This is actually a very serious issue for CBD fishos and isn't taken lightly.

The next target will obviously be the Maribyrnong River if the new rules get a look in.

Greg, I want to start by saying I have a lot of respect for you AND I am happy to engage in a serious intelligent conversation about the issue at hand BUT that is not possible as it would just get de-railed (as most topics on here do)

Classic example of that, on this thread is

Voodoo who do you do voodoo

As a bit of FYI (which you probably know, but this is for the wider Forum community): Most Government Departments, large Organisations and the like, engage the services of "Media Monitoring" Companies who inform them of the "goings on" out there. So far this thread has "played" to their advantage. Not to mention the low opinion they must have of us if Forum history and behaviour are anything to go by.


My post was in comment to and only in comment to:

Load of ****.

Have got the good oil that lots being done in the background to get this in front of jaala and others to reopen the consultation period as a minimum.

The blue highlighted part , , , , yep, what a compelling argument that is (and for those that missed it, my comment is steeped in sarcasm).

Secondly that post is only "ingratiating" the author to grandeur of being "in the know" but not sharing the info of who how what etc.

Unlike yourself who is pro-active to the cause and to finding a solution. AND also brings other members up to speed and can join in on an appropriate discussion to better the cause , , , , and not the ego of a member who is after 5 minutes of fame.

As far as I know, we all only found out about it on Friday...two days after the cutoff time! VRFish are right on it at the moment, communicating with Maritime Safety and Parks Vic.

Lastly the "reopen the consultation period as a minimum"

All as that is going to do is re-align "their" biased process one step back , , , , to which they are and will debunk any arguments you guys put forward.


NOW, you don't have to heed anything I have said (and I expect an attack) because all as I am seen as, is an interstate Shmuck who posts "silly" pictures and puts up some "whimsical" posts (heaven forbid for some levity or joviality to lighten the mood of the Forum). And even when I have shared my opinion (PLB and the anonymity of the team as an example) I "don't know what I am talking about" or "say some "colossally stupid things", even when my comments have been supported by other members, stalwarts of the Forum and even Team Members.

BUT the instigator of this thread who has posted on anther thread:

I am certain Martin Bryant targeted the wrong people...

If only they were all disposed of where they should have been before birth, in their dads wank sock or aborted

Not only is that a violation of a minimum of 3 Forum Rules, it is an abhorrent comment and if that kind of comment filters through here, it would only derogate the real arguement. It also gives the "decision makers" an idea of the kind of people they are up against, an easy win for them, wouldn't you say.



If my opinion on this matter is worth anything:

These "elite private schools like Wesley, St Kevin's, Melbourne Girls etc and their alumni" , , , , these alumni aren't "the Check-out chick" or the Mechanic down the road. They are most highly likely Doctors, Lawyers, high ranking Officials, people of position and power , , , , so this "sooky sooky la la" attitude of "entitled" Fisherman with boats who think they can't do anything wrong, isn't going to get you guys anywhere. These people are formidable advisories.


Yes, the "consultation process" is flawed. Moaning about it by some, gets you nowhere, as is the interest going to fade on the issue as also this thread is going to AND is not an argument to base your case on.

The two points I see as the issue is;

1. Due process hasn't been adhered to with the Consultation Process. Don't whinge about it , , , , state a case, prove it.

2. With the comment " ”We encourage anyone with an interest in safety on the Yarra River to submit their comments in writing before the consultation process closes on 6 November 2019,” Mr Toy said." (and comments similar through out the process). That comment is indicative of the flawed process. It "encourages" anyone with an interest in "safety" , , , , that is a "leading" statement", NOT impartial to receiving any other submissions.

So , , , , a flawed due process and flawed impartiality. And hopefully VRFish are onto it.


So, Greg, you are right , , , , it is a serious issue , , , , don't tell me, tell some other members , , , , because outside of a turn of behaviour and events, I shall do what is synonymous with this forum , , , , grab my box of popcorn and enjoy the circus , , , , because you can bet your boating fishing rights to the Yarra, that the powers to be and the "alumni" are doing the same.


Regards, Bill

[greggo]

Greg, I want to start by saying I have a lot of respect for you AND I am happy to engage in a serious intelligent conversation about the issue at hand BUT that is not possible as it would just get de-railed (as most topics on here do)

Classic example of that, on this thread is...etc., etc..

No worries Bill, I hear you and all good.

[greggo]

Exactly greggo.

The proposed rules come at a minor cost to the rowers. A small price to pay for knocking out all fishos from the waterways. You can bet your left nut these rowing clubs were consulted with and rules designed around impacting them the least.

The rowing clubs even had an alert emailed to them by MSV, notifying them of the consultation period!

[rb85]

This is actually a very serious issue for CBD fishos and isn't taken lightly.

The next target will obviously be the Maribyrnong River if the new rules get a look in.

Greg, I want to start by saying I have a lot of respect for you AND I am happy to engage in a serious intelligent conversation about the issue at hand BUT that is not possible as it would just get de-railed (as most topics on here do)

Classic example of that, on this thread is

Voodoo who do you do voodoo

As a bit of FYI (which you probably know, but this is for the wider Forum community): Most Government Departments, large Organisations and the like, engage the services of "Media Monitoring" Companies who inform them of the "goings on" out there. So far this thread has "played" to their advantage. Not to mention the low opinion they must have of us if Forum history and behaviour are anything to go by.


My post was in comment to and only in comment to:

Load of ****.

Have got the good oil that lots being done in the background to get this in front of jaala and others to reopen the consultation period as a minimum.

The blue highlighted part , , , , yep, what a compelling argument that is (and for those that missed it, my comment is steeped in sarcasm).

Secondly that post is only "ingratiating" the author to grandeur of being "in the know" but not sharing the info of who how what etc.

Unlike yourself who is pro-active to the cause and to finding a solution. AND also brings other members up to speed and can join in on an appropriate discussion to better the cause , , , , and not the ego of a member who is after 5 minutes of fame.

As far as I know, we all only found out about it on Friday...two days after the cutoff time! VRFish are right on it at the moment, communicating with Maritime Safety and Parks Vic.

Lastly the "reopen the consultation period as a minimum"

All as that is going to do is re-align "their" biased process one step back , , , , to which they are and will debunk any arguments you guys put forward.


NOW, you don't have to heed anything I have said (and I expect an attack) because all as I am seen as, is an interstate Shmuck who posts "silly" pictures and puts up some "whimsical" posts (heaven forbid for some levity or joviality to lighten the mood of the Forum). And even when I have shared my opinion (PLB and the anonymity of the team as an example) I "don't know what I am talking about" or "say some "colossally stupid things", even when my comments have been supported by other members, stalwarts of the Forum and even Team Members.

BUT the instigator of this thread who has posted on anther thread:

I am certain Martin Bryant targeted the wrong people...

If only they were all disposed of where they should have been before birth, in their dads wank sock or aborted

Not only is that a violation of a minimum of 3 Forum Rules, it is an abhorrent comment and if that kind of comment filters through here, it would only derogate the real arguement. It also gives the "decision makers" an idea of the kind of people they are up against, an easy win for them, wouldn't you say.



If my opinion on this matter is worth anything:

These "elite private schools like Wesley, St Kevin's, Melbourne Girls etc and their alumni" , , , , these alumni aren't "the Check-out chick" or the Mechanic down the road. They are most highly likely Doctors, Lawyers, high ranking Officials, people of position and power , , , , so this "sooky sooky la la" attitude of "entitled" Fisherman with boats who think they can't do anything wrong, isn't going to get you guys anywhere. These people are formidable advisories.


Yes, the "consultation process" is flawed. Moaning about it by some, gets you nowhere, as is the interest going to fade on the issue as also this thread is going to AND is not an argument to base your case on.

The two points I see as the issue is;

1. Due process hasn't been adhered to with the Consultation Process. Don't whinge about it , , , , state a case, prove it.

2. With the comment " ”We encourage anyone with an interest in safety on the Yarra River to submit their comments in writing before the consultation process closes on 6 November 2019,” Mr Toy said." (and comments similar through out the process). That comment is indicative of the flawed process. It "encourages" anyone with an interest in "safety" , , , , that is a "leading" statement", NOT impartial to receiving any other submissions.

So , , , , a flawed due process and flawed impartiality. And hopefully VRFish are onto it.


So, Greg, you are right , , , , it is a serious issue , , , , don't tell me, tell some other members , , , , because outside of a turn of behaviour and events, I shall do what is synonymous with this forum , , , , grab my box of popcorn and enjoy the circus , , , , because you can bet your boating fishing rights to the Yarra, that the powers to be and the "alumni" are doing the same.


Regards, Bill

The narrator strikes again ever considered a career in politics Bill because it would suit you.

Write massive paragraphs about nothing then PM members of the forum to either clear the air or challenge them. Remember Brownie.

So I posted voodoo who do you do voodoo hardly derailed the thread as you accused me of.

Anyhow I feel for anglers in the city due to be these developments elite private educated folk wield a lot of power in the city. Surely the areas can still be shared with a compromise reached.

[Mattblack]

They did specify that due to increasing use and subsequent congestion that the step was made for safety reasons. I can only imagine how hard it would be for those big cruise boats to navigate around stopped or slow moving vessels. Sounds like the Yarra is simply becoming busier like the rest of Melbourne's thoroughfares and we need to change with the times.

[rb85]

They did specify that due to increasing use and subsequent congestion that the step was made for safety reasons. I can only imagine how hard it would be for those big cruise boats to navigate around stopped or slow moving vessels. Sounds like the Yarra is simply becoming busier like the rest of Melbourne's thoroughfares and we need to change with the times.

In some cases a thoroughfare as well as a body of water for recreation.

[Mattblack]

They did specify that due to increasing use and subsequent congestion that the step was made for safety reasons. I can only imagine how hard it would be for those big cruise boats to navigate around stopped or slow moving vessels. Sounds like the Yarra is simply becoming busier like the rest of Melbourne's thoroughfares and we need to change with the times.

In some cases a thoroughfare as well as a body of water for recreation.

Unfortunately the body of water in mention is not big enough for both.
Dare I say it, but I'd bet a few thoughtless boaties anchoring up in stupid places instigated the changes to begin with.

[greggo]

Unfortunately the body of water in mention is not big enough for both.
Dare I say it, but I'd bet a few thoughtless boaties anchoring up in stupid places instigated the changes to begin with.

That's actually a long way from the truth. There's plenty of room for everyone to use the river and there is no congestion; the safety issue is the rowers hitting other river users. You only need to spend a Saturday morning on the river to see them in action...going flat-out and backwards!

All the fishos that kayak or boat the river, know to stay tight against the bridge structures to minimise the chance of being hit. I'd say 4 out of 5 who've fished there have been hit or had a near miss from a straying rower, even while taking every precaution to avoid an incident. Most incidents occur when they come from behind, and you dont see or hear them until it's too late.

So to avoid theses incidents, they are prohibiting a vessel (us) from stopping at a bridge to fish (where the fish are)...sure that will reduce incidents because we wont be fishing on the river any more. This was done after a supposed consultation with all sport, commercial and recreational river users, with the major fishing bodies never being consulted! Hopefully VRFish can get on top of it.