Looks like it's becoming a bigger issue on the way a government department conducts itself.

Im still astonished that Fisheries, which relies more than most departments on public goodwill and perception, has managed to burn it up so easily for a gain of zero, even if they win in the next case.

What will they gain that they couldn't have achieved with a few brochures and consultation?

Double post from Alice Springs Airport :-)

 Page shared

Talk about short sightedness and lack of maturity in dealing with this matter. In my view a good administrator would have seen that there is a problem with the regulation and set about doing a bit of research and consultation with vested parties to see if the proposed change was going to achieve something tangible and good for the cray stocks sustainability. Also is it a value adding regulation to foist upon amateur catchers of crays.

As I have said in past posts, I shall praise Fisheries from high when they do good things to sustain our fishing stocks, like their recent blitz on pot pinchers etc. some times I might not agree with their action but I trust them to have done the research and have introduced a new regulation for a sound science backed reason. recent reduction in herring limit and now southern gardie catches.

I have the belief that the current prosecution re: surfaced numbers of crays for examination out of the water is a bad regulation and lacks practical for thought.

Governments are not the holders of all good thoughts, the Perth Modern School fiasco is an excellent example of that.

Just my view.

Fisheries are the recipient of a lot of public good will and support, as seen when people do the wrong thing (pulling others pots ect). The positive comments from the mass is likely some of the best feedback for any government department.

They are certainly shooting themselves in the foot with this rubbish and it is great to see it is getting so much support from a ever growing majority.

I also wrote to Fisheries WA via Facebook as the everyday man looking for some common sense and advising of the damage (in my opinion) that is being done with the wider fishing/diving community.

I have so much respect for the work they did this crayfish season and all year round really but to keep going down this track over a clear technicality/ interpretation is crazy and a waste of time, effort, money & public goodwill. I also tried to get IFISH to share the ABC article but no joy yet. Best of luck Brett

I do not know Bret Carter, and this is the first time I have read his story, but I sorta think he was taking the piss a bit. 25 crays in his bag, 2 other divers who also had a full bag, tying his bag off below surface. I can see why he aroused the interest of Fisheries. I know that will not be a popular opinion on here though.

 It's quite obvious that people with the opinion"why did he have so many crays in his bag in the first place" are not cray divers them selfves.

Cant tell me when they are fishing with two on board and they have one bag of demersals evem if one person caught them that the same person was to pull up another sized demersals they wouldnt keep it enough though he already had reached his  bag limit of two fish.

Respect your point of view Westcoast , but have you ever tried to look for those tiny hairs under the water? , sometimes we are battling to correctly sort on the boat , never mind under the drink.

Indeed the one time we were checked a few years back , of our 10 or so crays in the boat between 3 blokes , fisheries took 2 back , because of the most minuutest of hairs barely a mm or so long .( a warning only)

How many people go crabbing and keep 10 , but scoop 20 for measuring? , how many people fish for that last bag limit dhu and hook a double header?

or as said over and over , how many with 14 crays from one pot between 2 blokes pull the last to find another 14?.

And out of all these groups who,s in the most danger and least able to accurately sort there catch to the excact letter of the laws we face?

I think you are being a tad harsh , as many a time as my role of boat boy for the other blokes diving , have more than the bag limit come up , for all sorts of reasons,

mainly cause they tend to grab what they see as viable catch given the conditions they are collecting in , and final sorting keeps you within the laws and bag limits, alot go back.

But good to hear your opinion anyway as its made me see both sides a little clearer.

Just hit deck (35 m dive). Boat tied off back of me( mate diving with me). Still on deco line. Didn't stop them racing in. Pulled deco line 2 Dhues .12 Crays total. He still tried pushing issue they where tied to my boat . Asked my mate after he hit surface has he got anything answer no. No meaning nothing tied to his boat ( all on mine).x2 snares. X2 spear guns x2 dive bags.x1 shark shield ( on deco line).Officer having argument with my mate saying you said you had nothing. Kept going for 10 mins . Pretty obvious where his gear was. This was prior to Brett's case. Load of crap. Few days later arguement over same issue at ramp. Load of crap. Worst thing is had it all on video. Was going to push it but couldn't be stuffed. My big question once again is . The officer who thinks this is a rule who charged Brett . Is it same officer involved in other 3 . Someone earlier put up taking the piss . Probably is pushing it a wee bit can't argue that point. But if it's 1 or 30 wouldn't mater . Different officer pulled up a local business man from rocko( after this event) who heaps of people know. Let them take of kit and sort prior to coming on the boat. WTF. Seems some officers have different rules not all the same. Won't effect me much now days but if he looses this it will effect every diver in future. No one I have ever known has ever heard this rule.

 Everybody here who has a cray licence, will have received a Fisheries Survey.
I urge you to write in the comments section, what you think about the case either way.

However if you are going to write "good on ya Fisheries", FIRST make sure you know the facts of the case so you are making an INFORMED comment.
 

 I'm just happy that all here are having a sensible debate and how this case should have been sorted out in the first place with common sense. I'm sure Fisheries can recommend to the minister responsible that there are some laws that are a grey area or just not common sense as mentioned. Some good points West Coast and as usual Rob. Crays certainly survive a lot better than fish do so I can't see what the problem with the 5 minute rule for divers is. Fisheries did an excellent job this season catching the cheating and stealing fucktards.

 About team. A pensioner walking along shallows scooping crabs. Son in water diving just out from him. They get there 20 crabs. Go back to car to load catch and gear. Fronted by guess who same officer. Told diver you have over your limit? Reply from diver my old man contributed to catch wtf are you  going on about. Officer ,no way did he catch 10 of the 20 in that tub.reply from diver, bit of grey area like to see you prove it in court. Arguement followed ( discussion) on matter. Again no rule broken. But someone interpreted it differently to people catching crabs. Another massive grey area . And true story. West coast has his opionion and can't be changed that's fine. I never knew who Brett was myself until I seen him in courtroom. Do I dislike this officer , no I don't . Had some good discussions with him over the years :):). But I disagree with some of his ideas on the fisheries act. If Brett thought he was doing something wrong , he had 30 meters to swim back to boat on surface . Could have dumped bag at any time in that distance. Didn't ? Why. Everyone I know clips dive bag , snares, fish ect on deco line , normal practice for divers ( not hiding stuff). Look fisheries do great job most times , should have been warning ( without fine) then fisheries should have put in paper , radio and update Crays guide instantly . There interpretation of take. Shouldn't have gone this far. What would have happened if crabber in my earlier comment just rolled over . Instead of standing up for his rights. No where in rules does it state you have to catch 10 and your mate, dad ect has to catch 10. What happens when you Dhue fish, pink fish ect. Drifting along skipper catches Dhue . Decky catches nothing. Next drift same again. Do you let it go no you don't ( boat limit) what happens with double header of Dhue when your by yourself . Once you lift them out water  in boat that is classed as your have caught them. ( if they board you straight away) your fu--ed. even though your only taking hooks out of them to realease one.  Cray pots way to go now days. Next you will have to put counter on them. Once 8 enter neck automatically shuts. when it goes back to rocko courts.  Every diver and fisherman should rock up ,if not working to show support . 

well put johny

that is exactly why all rec fishers should be appalled at this change in interpretation of the word ''TAKE' by fisheries in this case and support brett imo

hezzy

Interesting read from both sides.

since this rose I have been diving with a gauge and doing my checks on the go...small hairs being only problem, I don't do a lot of dives with 1 or more crew but would like the luxury of the boat limit in that case...maybe bad timing or possibly his or both attitudes got in the way in this case as I believe the benefit to check on boat should be given regardless of numbers at any one time on landing catch on the water , hopefully this isn't gone as an outcome of this.

Been boating..fishing / diving fairly regularly over a 10 year period and have crossed fisheries a total of 5-6 times I recon, don't know how some on here know them so well and have issues in the past...especially being so close when diving.

Some simple things you may understand, 1. When crabbers ( scoopers) go to catch there crabs. Normally have 2 to 3 sharing a tub. Scoop crab remove from water guage if sized ,you put in tub you have taken it . 2. Potting pull pot remove your Crays 8 or 16 ( max) depending on if 2 licence holders on boat with there name on 1 float each. Guage clip tail put in tub you have taken it. Another interesting point about potting. If you don't tip Crays out into tub and deck ,and you remove 1 at a time from pot and only take your 8 or 16 out , the rest can be left in there. For the following day. 3. Marron catching we will go snare only waters on this one . Snare marron walk back to bank , open snare remove your marron on bank. Guage put in sack or bucket you have taken it. Now in Brett's case once snare has gone around cray you have taken it . No time on boat to sort guage or clip (5 min rule). Every other rec fishing gives you time. Even abalone remove ab from reef big knife or flat head pop off reef ( surely you have taken it at this stage ). No you still have time to guage and put back if under size. Wtf surely all of these you have TAKEN all off these. Pretty simple don't give a flying fuck about how many Crays in shared bag . You have not taken it until it has been. Checked for hairs, size and clipped like every other hunt and gather rec fishing sport . Going back when your where new member . Attacking for tagging Dhues . Some people just like to see the negatives in people . Pretty sure you have never put anything up , bar negative stuff. Could be wrong on that ? That's fine free world, but I would read and understand rules and regs prior to doing so.

 I have joined the facebook page and will be diving for crays this season.Great points lil johnny.I am sure that is how we all interpret the regs.

If the Dept of Fisheries is now stating that "take" means put in the catch bag......I'd like to know how many divers out there have ever been prosecuted or given written warnings by Fisheries for being in possession of crays that don't have their tail clipped when they surface?

And if the number is 0 then why have fisheries not been doing their job by prosecuting every diver they come across.

pretty simple explanation of course because the "unwritten" 5 minute rule has always been there.

For those on Facebook if you've got a spare 2mins, please comment on Fisheries WA latest media release / PR exercise to let them hear your thoughts on this case...

www.facebook.com/FisheriesWA/posts/376868312728510:0

 Guys I think we are losing the intent of the act, that is in my books to stop rape and pillage, maintaining biomass for the future, not for one FMO to get his quota, simple question, why not allow divers to sort there crays out topside? They are just money grabbers like the rest of the gov. Fairness to all.

Response received from Fisheries WA via Facebook messenger after my message to them earlier in the week

"We appreciate the concerns over the recent court action in the Demir v Carter case. There has been a mixed reaction to the case, with comments also supporting Fisheries’ actions and the finding of the appeal.

As the legal process in this case has not been concluded, we are not able to comment on the proceedings other than to say the Supreme Court Appeal decision has confirmed the intent of the legislation around the ‘take’ of fish.

A copy of the judgement, which explains the Justice’s rationale and the importance of clarifying this area of the law, is available at http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf/main.xsp."

cheers for the link Darren.

Fisheries saying "take" is the moment you snare a crayfish..... then logic follows that every person using a snare will be in possession of an illegal cray. IE a cray that they have "taken" which does not have it's tail clipped.

 Given Fisheries misguided fervour in prosecuting this case, for me it calls into question any recent high profile prosecution by them.
While we all applaud Fisheries success rate in Operation Bagana, Id hope that noone in that 12 has actually been perhaps untangling a pot rope from a prop or similar but the FMO has thought similar, "we'll get this fucker"

There has been MANY far more serious cases where Government Departments (both Aus and US) get "white line fever" and pursue cases even as far as the death penalty despite being aware of innocence.

http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf/judgment.xsp?documentId=87415CD504CFFDE34825814F002A3E95&action=openDocument&SessionID=EROOLWKYAS

here is the key points imo on what the fishieres are disputing &it also holds the key to winning the case

hezzy

[[''5 At the hearing there were two principal issues in dispute. The first issue concerned which fisherman actually snared and placed the rock lobsters into the blue catch bag that the respondent had possession of at the time he completed his dive and boarded the dive vessel, the Tupperware Tubb.
6 The second issue in dispute was, if the number of rock lobster within the blue catch bag exceeded the statutory bag limit, at what point in time were the rock lobsters 'taken' pursuant to s 4 and s 50 of the FRMA. The prosecution case was that the respondent had 'taken' the rock lobsters at the time he had snared the rock lobsters. The respondent's position was that to 'take' embraces a process that was not complete at the point of time of the snaring and further, even at the time of boarding the dive vessel with the rock lobsters, the process of 'taking' was not complete. On the respondent's case, the fisheries officers intervened and commenced the investigation on board the dive vessel before the 'taking' process was complete. Hence, the offence was not complete.
7 Evidence was received in respect to both principal issues. The magistrate found that to 'take' is a process and that the offence contrary to s 51 of the FRMA had not been completed at the time the respondent boarded the dive vessel with a catch bag containing 17 rock lobsters in excess of the daily bag limit. Given that the magistrate dismissed the charge for that reason, her Honour did not make a finding as to whether the respondent's colleagues, Mr Anderson and Mr Debonie, had placed rock lobsters into the blue catch bag that was in the possession of the respondent.
8 It is necessary that the evidence be outlined in some detail. This will ensure that the issues at trial are fully illuminated and therefore, the reasoning of her Honour in respect to the construction of the relevant provisions of the statute is properly understood.]]''

now read this piece of evidence and ask yourself why did they allow the five min rule for the first diver but not the second or brett as third diver ??? is that not contradictory in process /practice ??

[ ''Evidence concerning the number of rock lobsters snared by the respondent
12 The evidence regarding the observations of the fisheries officers in respect to when the divers surfaced was not in dispute at the hearing. The fisheries officers gave evidence that on 18 November 2014, they approached a vessel named the Tupperware Tub that was anchored in Warnbro Sound. There were no persons on-board. The first diver, Mr Debonie, surfaced at 9.01 am and boarded the Tupperware Tubb at 9.04 am. The second diver, Mr Anderson, surfaced and boarded the vessel at 9.07 am.
13 The first diver, Mr Debonie, was observed after boarding the vessel retrieving a green mesh catch bag from the water on the port side of the vessel.3 Mr Debonie was observed measuring rock lobsters retrieved from the green mesh catch bag. The rock lobsters were placed in two tubs and the catch was sorted which resulted in some rock lobsters being returned.4 Fisheries Officer Demir then observed Mr Debonie tip the contents of the blue tub into the ocean. A red tub remained.
14 Fisheries Officer Demir recalls that Mr Anderson held up an empty catch bag and observed that he had a couple of rock lobsters in his wetsuit.5
15 A third diver, the respondent, surfaced with a blue catch bag and boarded at 9.11 am. The respondent, upon surfacing, placed his blue catch bag on the port gunnel side of the vessel. At 9.16 am the respondent was observed by Fisheries Officer Demir6 and Fisheries Officer Gogoll7 pulling the blue catch bag, with which he surfaced, onto the vessel Tupperware Tub. Fisheries Officer Demir gave evidence that he observed the respondent tipping the catch from the blue catch bag into a blue tub.8 The fisheries officers then intervened and commenced an investigation into the contents of the blue catch bag.

The fisheries officers' examination of the respondent's blue tub determined that the tub contained 25 rock lobster. The examination of the red tub determined that the tub contained 14 rock lobsters.9 Mr Debonie accepted, during his evidence, that his green catch bag contained 14 rock lobsters.10]]''

fisheries mistake right here in evidence at 30 , males do not have tar spots lol , calls there credibility and evidence into question somewhat
hezzy

30 Fisheries Officer Gogoll stated that the process of determining whether a rock lobster was totally protected involved inverting the rock lobster and viewing the underside of the tail to determine if it was setose, with males having a tar spot. That process would take 10 to 20 seconds. Following that process, the diver gauges the rock lobster to ensure that the rock lobster is within the minimum size.45

what there saying swompa is you have fiv minutes underwater from the time you snare it /place it in your bag to then inspect it and check it , release it or keep it , after that 5 mins below , you are considered to have taken it as part of your bag limit ,

hezzy