# New kayaking laws in SA



## fishnfreak

Hi guys, apologies if im a bit blunt and pissed off, but i just got a letter in the mail from the Government of South Australia concerning new laws. These laws are introduced as of the 1st of September, and are because of, "changes to boating."

The one that concerns us is that now, "Canoes, kayaks or similar small human powered vessels (other than a rowboat) and personal watercraft (PWC, generally known as jet skis, are now restricted to semi-protected waters (that is less than two nautical miles from the coast).

How ridiculous is this? I am this weekend going to a place on the coast where i fish regularly, and have planned a mothership excursion 14km offshore to fish a reef that rises to about 4ft deep. This is now illegal. What is the friggin country coming to where we cant paddle a bloody plastic boat where we want?


----------



## YakN00b

There's those do gooders at work again. Gives me the screaming shits.


----------



## fishnfreak

is there anything we can do?


----------



## blahger

fishnfreak said:


> "Canoes, kayaks or similar small human powered vessels (other than a rowboat) and personal watercraft (PWC, generally known as jet skis, are now restricted to semi-protected waters (that is less than two nautical miles from the coast).


I see lots of kayaks being modded to have two oarlocks added. Is that enough to make it a row boat?


----------



## fishnfreak

its bloody ridiculous.


----------



## Feral

If your state boundaries are similar to ours, (Qld) you only have to make it from the 2mile to the 3 mile line! Then you are in commonwealth waters! If your doing a "mothership" trip, as long as you launch the yak outside state controlled waters your sweet. You just need to find the extent of the state controlled waters down there. (As I said 3 nautical miles in Qld, It is likely to be the same down there)

Otherwise just tell em your name is Alex Downer when they pull you up!


----------



## spooled1

Which SA Government department did this?


----------



## YakN00b

fishnfreak said:


> is there anything we can do?


Get every kayaker in the area to paddle out past the "safe" point and dare them to arrest you all


----------



## danfish

:shock: You serious?? Thats a load of crap! Alot of people were predicting this, ie. regulations on kayaks, and it has begun. Its sad to see it happening, i doubt it will be long till the other states follow with similar, just as stupid laws.
What are the regs on your mothership excursion? If you launch from a boat 14km out, as soon as the yak hits the water technically you're breaking the law? What a crock!

No need to apologise for being pissed off...

Dan


----------



## spooled1

Screw your heads back on for a second. 
Which SA Government department is responsible for this?


----------



## fishsmith

Personal Watercraft
A PWC is a craft that is propelled by a motor, has a fully enclosed hull, is designed not to retain water if capsized and is operated by a person who sits, stands or kneels on the craft.

Personal Watercraft (PWC) - often referred to as jet skis® - include

waverunners® 
Sea Doos® 
Wave Jammers® 
wetbikes® 
jetboards 
other similar boats 
Rules which apply to the operation of motor boats also apply to PWC

Other requirements that apply to PWC that you need to be aware of are:

PWC can only be operated by persons at least 16 years of age who hold an appropriate licence to operate the PWC. 
the operator and any passengers onboard a PWC must wear a PFD Type 2 or 3 at all times 
Unless engaged in water skiing on the River Murray, person must not operate a PWC on any State waters 
after sunset or 8pm (whichever is the earlier) on any day 
before 9am on a Sunday or before 8am on any other day 
If a person operating a PWC is engaged in water skiing, the restrictions are those that apply to water skiing, that is the boat must only be operated between the hours of sunrise and sunset

Unless zoned otherwise a 4 knot speed limit applies to all PWC within 200 metres of the metropolitan shoreline (between Outer Harbour southern breakwater and southern end of Sellicks Beach) and the backwaters of the River Murray. Similar restrictions also apply to a number of other areas within South Australia; these areas are generally well signposted, however if in doubt you should check with the local Council or your local Transport Safety Compliance Officer - Marine 
All operators and passengers on PWC must at all times wear a PFD that complies with one or more of the approved standards. 
Note: From 1 September 2009 a PWC may not be operated in unprotected waters, i.e. beyond two nautical miles offshore, without the approval of the CEO. 

A person must not operate a PWC without a code of practice (Ride Smart) sticker being correctly affixed. Ride Smart stickers are available free of charge from any Service SA Customer Service Centre. 
Except for a Personal Flotation Device (PFD), there is no legal requirement to carry other safety equipment on your PWC.

* This is all I can find on their website....Seams they are targeting PWC and not Kayaks...At this stage anyway......Scott.*


----------



## fishnfreak

spooled1 said:


> Screw your heads back on for a second.
> Which SA Government department is responsible for this?


Spooled, the department is the Department for Transprort, Energy and Infrastructure.


fishsmith said:


> This is all I can find on their website....Seams they are targeting PWC and not Kayaks...At this stage anyway......Scott.


Mate, i have a letter here that says otherwise, and from http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/safety/m ... /index.asp

Note: From 1 September 2009, the following vessels may not be operated in unprotected waters, i.e. beyond two nautical miles offshore, without the approval of the CEO.

Personal Watercraft (PWC)
Canoes, kayaks or other similar small human powered vessels (other than rowboats)


----------



## fishsmith

Exemptions

The safety equipment requirements apply to the majority of boats. However, certain types of boat are either partially or totally exempt from these requirements. Some of the more common exemptions are summarised below.

Canoes, kayaks, sailboards, kiteboards and similar small, unpowered boats must have for each occupant

a PFD that complies with the appropriate Standards and is worn at all times 
suitable bailer (unless the hull is permanently enclosed) 
waterproof torch or lantern while being operated during the hours of darkness. 
Personal watercraft or PWCs (jet skis®, waverunners®, jetboards, etc.)

All operators and passengers on PWC must at all times wear a PFD Type 2 or 3 that complies with one or more of the approved standards. A PFD Type 1 is not suitable when operating a PWC. 
*Note: From 1 September 2009, the following vessels may not be operated in unprotected waters, i.e. beyond two nautical miles offshore, without the approval of the CEO.

Personal Watercraft (PWC) 
Canoes, kayaks or other similar small human powered vessels (other than rowboats) *Further information is available at Personal watercraft safety.

All safety equipment must be readily accessible at all times and kept in good working order.

*Yep, you are on the money with this one FishnFreak, seems they have buried it under the saftey exquipment requirements section of their website.....This is nasty stuff that could go National before you know it..Can't believe they seaked that one in and its already the law...I'd all ring the CEO's home phone number and ask him for permission to go for a snapper fish or a paddle down at lake alexandra...Talk about big brother......Thanks for binging it to our attention FishnFreak.......Scott..*


----------



## spooled1

OK, My interpretation says this is very bad news for SA yak anglers - As Fishnfreak said, you'll find it all here:

http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/safety/m ... /index.asp

I suggest all yak anglers in other states keep an eye out for any upcoming policy remotely related to yaks and make it known IMMEDIATELY on forums like this. Anything yak related is important to know about ASAP even if its just speculation or backroom talk.

When things are legislated, you're freedom is screwed! Sorry, but it looks to me as if SA yakkers have been well and truly, screwed mainly because (a) nobody said anything or (b) nobody knew what was going on or (c) yakkers and other stakeholders were complacent.

Here is my advice for SA open water yak anglers: Form a unified collective immediately, draft a formal letter to the CEO kindly requesting the named individuals be given an exemption by the CEO to fish in open waters. As part of your request, state your open water yak experience, and make sure you have individuals that can validate your open water yak experience. Be prepared to make it known that you accept all responsibility for your actions and your willingness to work with safety organizations to limit any possibility of imminent risk. Do not be aggressive or demanding. Follow through objectively and work within the constraints of due process. When that letter gets rejected, arrange a meeting with the CEO and base a robust agenda around your written request.

Unfortunately this legislation is currently effective, Jumping up and down while screaming will do absolutely ZIP to make your lives better. Your only other option is to fit rowlocks and see if that works in a test case.


----------



## fishsmith

Interesting point ...What is the definition of Row boat as opposed to Kayak........Where does the PA fit into all of this


----------



## fishnfreak

Interesting point, seeing as it uses an single blade paddle, like an oar.

Possibly a discussion for a different thread.


----------



## Astro

this could be the the thin end of the wedge, and if the deaths were the catalyst then what a poor knee jerk reaction and to hide it away from plain sight highlights several issues:

1) they don't realise what impact this would have 
2) they haven't realised the popularity of kayaking 
3) they have done it to protect themselves and/or win some political points

having this as LAW as Dan mentioned is a major PITA, the only saving grace is that like most governments departments there just ain't enough bodies to police this. however we should not be made criminals for undertaking our chosen recreation/hobby/obsession.

it also highlights the seemingly total lack of coordination by the fishing fraternity by not catching this earlier...try this sort of stunt with the shooters party and all hell would be raised.


----------



## Donutslayer

Victoria is in the midst of this as well. Submissions have been done. I expect the outcome will be similar.


----------



## yankatthebay

leftieant said:


> I repeat - CHECK THIS HAS BEEN LEGISLATED.


bad news guys - it has indeed been set into the new legislation.

You must stay within 2 nautical miles of the "low water mark". This includes staying within 2 nautical miles of the shore when on Lake Alexandrina or Lake Albert too apparently.
The new legislation is here if anyone is interested in reading it: http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/lz...tion regulations 2009/current/2009.226.un.pdf


----------



## yankatthebay

also, a PDF must be warn at all times when on a kayak. there is no "interpretation" to be had on this point like in the NSW legislation.


----------



## yankatthebay

fishsmith said:


> Interesting point ...What is the definition of Row boat as opposed to Kayak........Where does the PA fit into all of this


There is no definition of a rowboat in the legislation document, nothing in the appendicies either. So one would assume that if you used an oar to propel it, then it would be a row boat. I would certainly argue that the PA fits that, if I lived in SA I would probably be the first to have to test it in court too since I wouldnt back down.

My stance if this comes into affect in NSW would be to ignore it to tell the truth - in Sydney, maybe a different story, but up here the only people who venture out that far with any sort of authority is the coastal patrol, and as long as you get on their good side they will let you get away with just about anything as long as they dont need to do anything (bring the commander a fish from your catch or something).


----------



## geocacher

I can see a lot of yak fisher buying Adventure Islands.

After all it's a trimaran. 8)

Dave


----------



## geocacher

Another thought, once you put an electric on them are they a power boat?

Dave


----------



## spooled1

YAB is right! This to make it a bit easier to understand:

South Australia 
Harbors and Navigation Regulations 2009 
under the Harbors and Navigation Act 1993

Part 5: Restricted areas and restrictions on use of certain waters

13-Certain vessels not to be operated in unprotected waters 
(1) A person must not, without the approval of the CEO, operateó 
(a) a personal watercraft; or 
(b) a canoe, kayak or other similar small human-powered vessel (other than a 
rowboat), 
in unprotected waters. 
Maximum penalty: $1 250. 
Expiation fee: $160.


----------



## Shufoy

WOW, this is fairly freaking full on.

Good luck beating this one SA yakkers, and i will certainly be looking closely at any new WA guidelines.


----------



## spottymac

Note: From 1 September 2009, the following vessels may not be operated in unprotected waters, i.e. beyond two nautical miles offshore, without the approval of the CEO.

* Personal Watercraft (PWC)
* Canoes, kayaks or other similar small human powered vessels (other than rowboats)

This is a sad day for all kayak fishermen going off shore, I just hope we don't have the same problem up here in QLD,

I can see every body fishing off Hobie Adventure Islands in SA, easy beaches to launch from, great platform to fish from, has good speed and is powered by wind, It is only small human powered vessels that are not to be operated in unprotected waters,
All you have to do is take a sail out on your fishing trip, Wind Power Yes is this a way around it,


----------



## Guest

I agree ! The Adventure Island is the answer.
The AI is a sailing vessel after all ( human powered as bonus).

* Personal Watercraft (PWC)
* Canoes, kayaks or other similar small human powered vessels (other than rowboats)
No restrictions to sailboats


----------



## nimblefrog

So if I add a Hobie Sail kit to me outback is it then exempt ?


----------



## mustrumr

This is madness! Some idiot in an 8 foot rowing boat can go where they like, yet a fully kitted out adult in a craft that is designed for ocean-going trips isn't free to take their kayak out more than two miles.

I think that this is going to need some quick action to get it reversed, and to stop it spreading to other states. Has anybody on the forum got the skills to set up an online petition to get this stopped? I'll sign it, and I think everybody else on this and all the other forums would too.

Who is the relevant Minister to email about this? I'll certainly be letting him/her know that I won't be coming to SA for a fishing holiday while these crazy laws are in force.

Cheers,


----------



## mtfisho

Hi Guys,
My only suggestion is we start a petition saying blah blah we were going to come up here to catch some Whyalla Snapper and Kangaroo Island Whiting but we wont make any trips there now thats for sure. Tourists dollars are everything to them and if we get enough they would probably change it.

Thanks Mitch


----------



## Kalgrm

mustrumr said:


> Who is the relevant Minister to email about this? I'll certainly be letting him/her know that I won't be coming to SA for a fishing holiday while these crazy laws are in force.


+1

We often drive through SA on the way to Vic. I WAS planning on taking a little longer, now that I own a yak, and do some fishing along the way. It's "straight through to the border, taking my money with me" ...

Not now.

Cheers,
Graeme


----------



## spooled1

leftieant said:


> (3) Without limiting regulation 6, *an application for approval under subregulation (1) may
> be made by an applicant on the applicant's own behalf or on behalf of a group of
> persons and, if an approval is granted to a group of persons, each member of the group
> is bound by the conditions (if any) to which the approval is subject.*
> 
> So - for example - a kayaking club could apply for approval to operate outside the 2 NM limit. I would imagine that conditions might include open water paddling training, carrying of certain items of safety equipment, etc etc.


I agree, the serious open water yak anglers should probably try this approach rather than (as tempting as it is) test the legislation. For many yak anglers in SA this legislation will never affect them, EVER. For a small handful of hard core open water anglers, this policy could completely destroy their fishing opportunities. Please consider the hardcore open water kayak crew and let them work out their own deals with regulators. If the general pool of kayak anglers let that happen right now, you just might have a better chance at getting your own permit when you're hardcore about fishing and paddling in open waters.


----------



## mustrumr

OK, to answer my own question, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure is The Honourable PATRICK CONLON MP. Says on his page here http://www.ministers.sa.gov.au/ministers.php?id=6 that his hobby is fishing. His email address is [email protected] so I'd suggest we start the ball rolling by inundating him with emails protesting this new law. If you aren't a South Australian resident, I'd suggest that making it plain that you won't be visiting SA for a fishing trip unless this law is repealed would be a good idea.

I'm off to do that right now.

Cheers,


----------



## yankatthebay

leftieant said:


> Also I don't see a clear description of 'unprotected waters' - although they have legislated smooth, semi-smooth, and restricted areas, so my read it that yakking will still be possible within these areas.


unprotected waters IS listed on page 16 of the document.
"_unprotected waters_ means waters offshore of a line 2 nautical miles seaward of the low water mark of a coast or of the banks of Lakes Alexandrina and Albert;"


----------



## yankatthebay

nimblefrog said:


> So if I add a Hobie Sail kit to me outback is it then exempt ?


I suspect this would mean your vessel is not "human powered", so it would not qualify as a kayak under that regulation.


----------



## Swamp

What a rubbish law! A well prepared kayaker with the appropriate safety gear should be allowed to go where ever they please. 
Who has been 2Nm (3.7km) off the coast of SA? I haven't. But i have been that far out in WA.

But thats not the point, we should be free to choose. Yakers from other states take notice! This could set a precedent for other states.

P.S. What about Freya? Are they going to fine her?


----------



## spooled1

mustrumr said:


> so I'd suggest we start the ball rolling by inundating him with emails protesting this new law. If you aren't a South Australian resident, I'd suggest that making it plain that you won't be visiting SA for a fishing trip unless this law is repealed would be a good idea.


Tell me mustrumr, how many laws have you seen repealed lately? SA kayakers effectively missed the boat on this one. It's unfortunate, but it's the reality. Any politician that gets a threatening letter after the fact will just look at the policy they created and pigeonhole everyone who opposes it now, as having sour grapes. I believe only the yakkers who are most affected right now (i.e. The current open water yak anglers in SA) should be given an opportunity to decide a course of action without having to put out political fires before they begin.

Think about it. Luckily for the people of SA, this law has a built in negotiation clause. Rather than attack what's already done, Open water yakkers in SA have a clean slate to create a positive image of our activity.


----------



## yakyakker

It's more important than ever for us and the wider kayaking community to limit the ammo for this kind of thing happening in other states. One of us dying, or making it on the news after being rescued by the channel 7 chopper could be all it takes. Unfair I know (they'll never ban surfing because someone dies) but it is reality, you know how politics and sensationalist media works.

Does AKFF have any links/ connections with other kayaking (non fishing) clubs, forums or groups? I get the feeling that some serious sea kayakers regard fishing kayaks and kayak fishermen generally as not having ocean going kayaks and not having the required skills or fitness for long trips. This sort of thinking is not good if we are trying to join forces to try and stop this kind of legislation. Having paddled both the Adventure and sit in sea kayaks in the high seas I know that there are suitable fishing kayaks for the ocean, and I have paddled with some very experienced guys over here who I'm just as comfortable out on the open ocean as with my sit in sea kayaking friends.

In SA it seems a little late, but perhaps there the govt could be convinced to introduce some sort of skills course/ licence run by various qualified groups (e.g. clubs), which must be obtained prior to going 2 NM out.


----------



## geocacher

And even though I don't think I would go down that track one of the many variations on the electric powered theme - torqeedo, minnkota fitted through mirage drive well or similar setup on other brands isn't human powered....

Go the Adventure Island I reckon...

Dave


----------



## Shorty

yankatthebay said:


> nimblefrog said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I add a Hobie Sail kit to me outback is it then exempt ?
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect this would mean your vessel is not "human powered", so it would not qualify as a kayak under that regulation.
Click to expand...

Looks like a few boys in South Ozzy will be fitting Pacific Action sails ;-)

Some jet ski fishos go out 20 miles so they will be pissed.


----------



## mustrumr

spooled1 said:


> mustrumr said:
> 
> 
> 
> so I'd suggest we start the ball rolling by inundating him with emails protesting this new law. If you aren't a South Australian resident, I'd suggest that making it plain that you won't be visiting SA for a fishing trip unless this law is repealed would be a good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> *Tell me mustrumr, how many laws have you seen repealed lately?* SA kayakers effectively missed the boat on this one. It's unfortunate, but it's the reality. Any politician that gets a threatening letter after the fact will just look at the policy they created and pigeonhole everyone who opposes it now, as having sour grapes. I believe only the yakkers who are most affected right now (i.e. The current open water yak anglers in SA) should be given an opportunity to decide a course of action without having to put out political fires before they begin.
Click to expand...

Well, the fishing licence laws in Western Australia for one. When the WA government introduced a proposal to require every boat and kayak angler to have a licence ($30) and a further licence if you wanted to fish for demersal scale fish ($150), there was a huge backlash, with emails and petitions left, right and centre. The minister and local members were made fully aware of how many people opposed the new system.

They backed down, and brought in a much more reasonable system. Admittedly these were regulations, not a new piece of legislation, but the principle remains the same: protest hard enough and you can get a government to change its mind, especially if there are votes or money in it.

I certainly support the right of open water yakkers in SA to choose how they wish to attack this issue, but I must admit that I'm not just thinking of SA here: I'm worried that this will spread Australia-wide, and I want to do my damnedest to prevent this. I would not be opposed to more stringent laws regarding required safety equipment, or a certificate of competency for ocean kayaking. It's the knee-jerk "let's just ban it" mentality behind bad legislation like this that I object to. I doubt that this legislation will prevent one single death.

I respect your right to see things differently, but I hope you will respect mine as well.

Cheers,

EDIT: I've just had a look, and the SA situation is apparently identical to that in the WA case I mentioned; this is not new legislation _per se_: these are new regulations applying to an existing law. It is much easier to get regulations passed (or amended) than it is to get a new piece of legislation through parliament, as it doesn't require all that "three readings" and "lower house - upper house" stuff. It just goes through on a single vote, often without any debate at all. Which makes it all the easier for concerted political pressure to bring about a backdown, as it doesn't require a hugely long and expensive process to implement change.


----------



## ELM

Does not surprise me one bit, Vic Government going through the marine act here and expect similar outcome here. As for buying an AI to get around the problem, you will need to check under wind powered vessels. Just because it is a Trimaran, does not mean it is not also restricted, they are looking at restricting sailing vessels under a certain length here in Vic so they may have also done the same in SA.

At least Vic Government has made it a public process (even if they don't plan to listen to the public), unlike you poor bugger's in SA that have just been stabbed in the back.

I would be at minimum, asking a minister what happened to the public consultation on this piece of legislation and my disapproval. If you do travel further out to fish then your only option is to apply for exemption as spooled1 has mentioned.


yakyakker said:


> In SA it seems a little late, but perhaps there the govt could be convinced to introduce some sort of skills course/ license run by various qualified groups (e.g. clubs), which must be obtained prior to going 2 NM out.


The last thing I would mention to these knucklehead bureaucrats is licenses, that would be like drilling a 2" hole in the bottom of your kayak, only you wouldn't be sinking in water, it would be more like political bullshit and red tape. Just what we all want $84.00 a year for a license then $102.00 for rego, so we can take the kayak out, and then there is the dog or kids, sorry sir it is only resisted as a single seat, throw your son overboard. Give em an 1" they will run a mile.


----------



## yakyakker

Alec has a point, but it's too late for SA as you say.

The WA fishing licence issue really suprised me recently, but has renewed my confidence in the power of the vote, and particularly the power of rational and influential lobbying to the right places. The WA licence issue really had the potential to influence a change of government at the next election and I think they recognised this enough to look at alternative suggestions from the angling community. And kayaking, as has been noted elsewhere, is really increasing in popularity.

Perhaps we need to get some pollies into kayak fishing?


----------



## Kalgrm

yakyakker said:


> Perhaps we need to get some pollies into kayak fishing?


I thought burlying for sharks with blood and guts was against the regulations?


----------



## Shorty

Get some Pollys into kayak fishing ?

I would gladly take some a few miles out in my yak,,1 way tickets $99, no return tickets availble at this time :lol:


----------



## YakN00b

yakyakker said:


> It's more important than ever for us and the wider kayaking community to limit the ammo for this kind of thing happening in other states. One of us dying, or making it on the news after being rescued by the channel 7 chopper could be all it takes. Unfair I know (they'll never ban surfing because someone dies) but it is reality, you know how politics and sensationalist media works.
> 
> Does AKFF have any links/ connections with other kayaking (non fishing) clubs, forums or groups? I get the feeling that some serious sea kayakers regard fishing kayaks and kayak fishermen generally as not having ocean going kayaks and not having the required skills or fitness for long trips. This sort of thinking is not good if we are trying to join forces to try and stop this kind of legislation. Having paddled both the Adventure and sit in sea kayaks in the high seas I know that there are suitable fishing kayaks for the ocean, and I have paddled with some very experienced guys over here who I'm just as comfortable out on the open ocean as with my sit in sea kayaking friends.
> 
> In SA it seems a little late, but perhaps there the govt could be convinced to introduce some sort of skills course/ licence run by various qualified groups (e.g. clubs), which must be obtained prior to going 2 NM out.


*What bullshit, you are creating more areas for them to legislate and control*.
The only way to deal with this shit is to get it repealed. By accepting any part of it you are allowing them to take more and more away from you.

I have watched a whole industry die because we tried to be the nice guys and get along with the government, it does not work fight now and fight hard.


----------



## azzaroo

marine park boundaries and government legislation........ coming to a beach near you


----------



## Shorty

If everybody in Australia emails aking for excemptions for while we are fishing in SA waters they might sit up and take notice, i guess you might be required to get an EPIRBand attend an approved kayak course or something of that nature.

Has anybody got the email for the CEO ?


----------



## water_baby

well gentlemen, i went to bed last night and woke up to a [email protected]*k :lol: for the record, i didnt get any letter like fishnfreak, and thanks mate for bringnig it to our attention.

Patrick Conlon, the MP in charge of the Transport Dept here in SA happens to be my local MP, and his office is 45 metres down the end of my street, so i will try and get a meeting with him to discuss these regulation changes and enquire about how best to go about gaining exemption from these changes and outline the safe and practically incident free nature of kayak fishing in this state and around the country in our great kayak fishing club (AKFF). i'll pick his brains about why this regulation was added too.

hopefully i can get a good answer out of him and a way of going about dealing with the situation within the bounds of the law as it stands.

If that discussion doesnt yield any positive results, and if it seems to be a waste of our time pursuing the legislated exemption available to us, then im all for a guerilla campaign to get the regulation changed.

even though im one of the people who have, in this state, been out past 2nm i would have to admit the majority of our fishing is within 2nm. i am also prepared to be the test case if it comes down to it. a smartly executed media flurry of 2 or 3 yakkers being fined carrying a full range of safety equipment should help. NOTE that it shows an expiated fine, not a criminal offence, in the legislation.

again, i stress that i agree with spooled on this, so if we can gain exemption then that should be the end of the matter, and may even set a precedent for kayakers in other states if it comes down to it.

im going to call his office right now and book a meeting 8)

EDIT: i have a meeting booked for next Thursday.

anyone with any pertinant points to raise please list them here. i will be taking the softly-softly approach in this meeting


----------



## widsa

ELM said:


> Does not surprise me one bit, Vic Government going through the marine act here and expect similar outcome here. As for buying an AI to get around the problem, you will need to check under wind powered vessels. Just because it is a Trimaran, does not mean it is not also restricted, they are looking at restricting sailing vessels under a certain length here in Vic so they may have also done the same in SA.
> 
> At least Vic Government has made it a public process (even if they don't plan to listen to the public), unlike you poor bugger's in SA that have just been stabbed in the back.


Eddy can you show us any website or publication about this Victorian process?
I certainly hope we dont end up the same way as SA, and if we have a chance to stop the regulation before it passes we should jump on it!..NOW.....!!!!
Feel sorry for you SA yakkers that have been shafted.

Will


----------



## yakyakker

YakN00b said:


> yakyakker said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's more important than ever for us and the wider kayaking community to limit the ammo for this kind of thing happening in other states. One of us dying, or making it on the news after being rescued by the channel 7 chopper could be all it takes. Unfair I know (they'll never ban surfing because someone dies) but it is reality, you know how politics and sensationalist media works.
> 
> Does AKFF have any links/ connections with other kayaking (non fishing) clubs, forums or groups? I get the feeling that some serious sea kayakers regard fishing kayaks and kayak fishermen generally as not having ocean going kayaks and not having the required skills or fitness for long trips. This sort of thinking is not good if we are trying to join forces to try and stop this kind of legislation. Having paddled both the Adventure and sit in sea kayaks in the high seas I know that there are suitable fishing kayaks for the ocean, and I have paddled with some very experienced guys over here who I'm just as comfortable out on the open ocean as with my sit in sea kayaking friends.
> 
> In SA it seems a little late, but perhaps there the govt could be convinced to introduce some sort of skills course/ licence run by various qualified groups (e.g. clubs), which must be obtained prior to going 2 NM out.
> 
> 
> 
> *What bullshit, you are creating more areas for them to legislate and control*.
> The only way to deal with this shit is to get it repealed. By accepting any part of it you are allowing them to take more and more away from you.
> 
> I have watched a whole industry die because we tried to be the nice guys and get along with the government, it does not work fight now and fight hard.
Click to expand...

YakNOOB, just wonder which industry this was? Just curious, perhaps we could learn from the experience?


----------



## MrX

To look at this issue from a different perspective&#8230;

This is the relevant part of the new SA regulation:

"13. Certain vessels not to be operated in unprotected waters
(1) A person must not, without the approval of the CEO, operate-
(b) a canoe, kayak or other similar small human-powered vessel (other than a
rowboat), in unprotected waters (i.e more that 3.7km seaward of the low water mark).
Maximum penalty: $1 250.
Expiation fee: $160.
(3) Without limiting regulation 6, an application for approval under subregulation (1) may be made by an applicant on the applicant's own behalf or on behalf of a group of
persons and, if an approval is granted to a group of persons, each member of the group is bound by the conditions (if any) to which the approval is subject."

It is pretty ordinary that the reg came into operation on 1 September, apparently without consultation with those who operators canoes, kayak or other similar small human-powered vessels more than 3.7 km offshore.

Leaving the consultation issue aside, on the face of it, it would appear to be a pretty sensible regulation - if properly applied. The rationale would be "public safety" issues - discouraging the ignorant from zooming out onto the ocean in their shiny new yaks utterly unprepared for the dangers, potentially risking their own lives, and putting rescuers in danger.

How many people are genuinely unfairly affected by it? I presume quite a few SA sea kayakers venture more that 3.7km seaward of the low water mark (don't know much about them). More importantly for us, hard-core fishing yakkers may be directly and unfairly impacted. But how many SA yakkers genuinely regularly fish more that 3.7km seaward of the low water mark? Are we talking a handful? A dozen? More than 20?

Contrast this with the WA regs (fundraiser?) discussed earlier, that impacted directly on everyone who wanted to fish, for no apparent public safety benefit.

From a political perspective, will the pollies really care if their new regulation inconveniences a tiny group of hardy well-prepared adventurers?

The issue is really one of application of the reg. If the CEO readily grants approval to a small number of named, well-prepared, hard-core yak fishos or members of a club - subject to reasonable safety conditions (eg similar to boats) - the new reg should present no problem. Wit small numbers, it should not be difficult to administer. A yak fishing club might be able to coordinate this (possibly via AKFF).

A little regulation might even be a good thing. Do we, as a community, really want un-prepared yakkers mucking about, 4k out to sea?

On the other hand, if the CEO receives a pile of abusive correspondence from a bunch of angry blokes from all over the country, most of whom have no real intention of ever venturing more than 3.7km off shore in SA, the permission system might unravel and go into the too hard basket. It might be counterproductive for those who genuinely want formal approval.

Interested to see how it works out.


----------



## water_baby

i couldn't agree more Mr X 

it will definitely be interesting to hear how difficult the process is for exemption. i might try and raise the issue with the CEOs representatives at a transport department office... after lunch!


----------



## feelfree09

the number for pat conlons office is 8226 1210. i think the guys who are truly affected by this should have first crack at getting this nonsense law changed, which is going to require a concerted effort by all of us not just those affected. we need to all band together and do some form of organised protest, be it e-mails, physically going to the offices of pat conlon, or any other means. This will not go away if we end up with random people just carrying on about this issue.

big thanks to water baby for taking the initiative to meet with pat conlon. please keep us all posted. also i sent you a pm mate 
cheers dan


----------



## skorgard

Waterbaby thanks for taking this up. I have been out to the Glenelg tyre reef on my AI which is 5km and would not like to be barred from doing so again.

I would suggest that you recommend a personal email to Mr C from anyone wanting to go out explaining
- purpose
- health
- safety plan

would be enough to get exemption.

Please also confirm that sailing vessels are exempt (eg AI)


----------



## ELM

Very right Mr X, I was shocked at the response to Mingles thread "Have you practiced an exit & wet re-entry on your kayak?" viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30307 45% have not and 31% without the extra gear they normally carry, and yes I will put my hand up, I always practice with the kayak but never have with the complete AI or Polynesian style. Shit did I learn a lesson and still paying for it, once heeled I will be back on the water and the AI will be going over and the dirtier the weather (within reason) the better no waiting for summer and warm water.
If we are not prepared to look after ourselves by minimizing the risk, not only for ourselves but the rescuers that venture out after us, then Big Brother has too.
As much as I hate saying it, if we are not prepared to self regulate and train then we deserve to be regulated by law. Do we have an Australian wide Kayaking Body that talks to the Government and Kayak clubs? Is the Government truly aware of the growth in our sport, have they sent literature to the kayak clubs about the changes but not the fishing clubs? How do we know?

If you do not want to be regulated by Government Legislation then prove strict self regulation with an organising body and quality training.


----------



## Davey G

take an umbrella out with you. when the water police boat pulls up alongside, get your brolley out, pop it open and recline back. when the copper starts giving you grief just tell him you're using the umbrella as a sail (main form of propulsion) and he won't be able to do a thing about it... (you can then call your paddle 'a backup propulsion device').

I can see the logic in the decision but if SA is anything like NSW, there won't be enough water police to actually enforce the new rule.


----------



## Biggera Yakker

That is utter crap!!!

To be TOLD you can't do something like this is ridiculous, and the Government goes on about the obesity crisis?

Where is our world heading?


----------



## mustrumr

I have had a look at the regulations here http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/lz/c/r ... 226.un.pdf and nowhere can I find a definition of what is or is not a kayak. There's a list of definitions that starts on page 10 of the PDF, and it does not mention kayaks at all, although it defines personal water craft and houseboats etc etc. Nor does it define kayak or canoe in the section that restricts them from travelling more than two nautical miles from shore (page 22 of the PDF).

In the absence of a definition it is impossible to tell whether you could get around the regulations by altering the propulsion method to oars, a motor, or sail. I suspect not: they would probably just argue that if it looks like a kayak, it _is_ a kayak, regardless of propulsion system. And since all the vessels we use are described as kayaks by the manufacturers, you would probably need some high-class legal wizardry to attempt to persuade a court otherwise :lol: .

It might be different for a Adventure Island, which is sold as a sailing trimaran that can also be used as a kayak by removing the amas and sail, but it's still iffy.

I don't know whether the absence of a definition of kayak is an oversight in the regulations, or whether it is deliberate; by avoiding a definition they don't have to get into propulsion methods or defining characteristics of a kayak, and that way they can just argue the point in court.

Cheers,


----------



## spooled1

mustrumr said:


> I respect your right to see things differently, but I hope you will respect mine as well.


Totally... and I also totally agree with and respect what you said in your post. It looks as if you possibly caught me out on my comment about repeal ;-)

This is beside the point and irrelevant to this thread but was the WA licensing fiasco you discussed, pipped at the post by a very astute force of WA recreational anglers before the amendments were actually passed or after it was created as regulation?

Anyway, back to the thread, sort of:

On 12 June this year I lodged a submission about the new NSW Marine Parks Regulation 2009 during the public consultation phase. Of the total 21 submissions (for and against) that were lodged about an overhaul of NSW Marine Park Regulation, me and 5 other applicants were able to ensure NSW Marine Park Rangers were better regulated with regard to their powers of removal of people from marine parks in NSW. If we missed our chance to make that submission, NSW Marine Park rangers could theoretically remove any person who, in their "opinion" caused an, "inconvenience". As a yak angler who surf launches, have a think about just how "inconvenient" you could potentially be as your yak is washed sideways into the beach by a wave. This was by no means a win, but it put another small plug in an ongoing political manipulation.

When I found out there were only 21 submissions out of a NSW population of about 6 million people, the complacency of NSW "recreational anglers" really hit home. Some of these lazy, whining, foolish tools happily tell people that the system sucks. So what if the system sucks! If we don't learn ways to maximise the system, we'll get railroaded every single time and continue to walk around like a bunch of beaten, repressed, big talking pansies.

I would fully support the hard line, fight till the death approach if recreational anglers stepped up to the plate and actually followed through with unified action and physical numbers. When 21 respondents out of 6 million NSW residents make submissions both for or against Marine Park policy changes, I truly believe baby steps, compliance, objectivity, flexibility, political nouse, openness and compromise seem to work pretty well during public consultation phases.

As for Water_Baby! Onya Aaron, good luck in your meeting mate.


----------



## azzaroo

[


Davey G said:


> I can see the logic in the decision but if SA is anything like NSW, there won't be enough water police to actually enforce the new rule.


its like a highway of police boats and marine park boats and fisheries boats for us some days :shock:


----------



## Kalgrm

mustrumr said:


> And since all the vessels we use are described as kayaks by the manufacturers, you would probably need some high-class legal wizardry to attempt to persuade a court otherwise :lol: .


Not the Pro Angler ... Hobie has stayed away from calling it a kayak.

I wonder how I would go? I don't take a paddle with me most of the time - just my Mirage drive and my sail. 

Cheers,
Graeme


----------



## Shorty

azzaroo said:


> [
> 
> 
> Davey G said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see the logic in the decision but if SA is anything like NSW, there won't be enough water police to actually enforce the new rule.
> 
> 
> 
> its like a highway of police boats and marine park boats and fisheries boats for us some days :shock:
Click to expand...

Heres our highway and fisheries boat ;-)


----------



## harrip94

YakN00b said:


> fishnfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> is there anything we can do?
> 
> 
> 
> Get every kayaker in the area to paddle out past the "safe" point and dare them to arrest you all
Click to expand...

 8) i would like to see them try to arrest the yakers :lol:


----------



## YakN00b

leftieant said:


> YakN00b said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What bullshit, you are creating more areas for them to legislate and control*.
> 
> 
> 
> Mate suggest you actually go back and read the document, including the part where it says exemptions maybe granted to certain groups.
Click to expand...

Who decides who these groups are and what the requirements are to join these groups as well as the licensing fees payable to join?

You all need to get off your complacent arses and fight this tooth and nail I know I will be if it gets to QLD.


----------



## grinner

human species going backwards in evolution.
matthew flinders sails round australia and charts it in a rowboat, now we must all be good little donkeys and obey our leaders down here on the animal farm.

pollies want your babies in day care from 2 weeks of age while hubby and wife slave away feeding the beast (the beauracracy). average australian father spends 90 seconds a day interacting with his teenage children.

try and step outside the square and the hammer of conformity will squash you like roadkill.

now back to the shopping mall to buy some more shoes for the wife and some wii games for the kids and then back to work.

a daring day for the average aussie is trying the hot and spicy instead of the regular kfc.

politicians egos , growing at about the same pace as the sport of kayak fishing.
hopefully anna bligh dies from eating her own master chef creation before she tries this in qld.

the whole problem is pollies used to have to run the commonwealth bank, the post office,qantas, telstra ,the railroads, the ports , the airports,the unis, the roads,electricity generation,the gio, public housing and handle a couple of wars.they offloaded that.
now they got nothing to do but design new christmas cards for the u.n. , tax us and then give it back as a stimulus (wtf), employ social workers to snatch babies and then fund legal aid for a big sh*tfight, go to france and disturb old war graves and dna test bone fragments and think up rediculous laws like this crook of [email protected] what the hell has this got to do with the govt.
when casey stoner can ride a motorbike at 320 kph and risk his life, who the hell are they to tell me i cant risk mine. crawl back under the rock from where you came you trade unionists and failed suburban solicitors (and bald ex rock stars)

cheers S.A. and best of luck.


----------



## Duane

I've just come across this and I'm getting more and more disgusted everyday on how we are turning into a nanny society.

My suggestion is to hide the GPS, and if/when you get chatted then just plead ignorance "gee officer, am I really that far from the beach, it only took me 40 minutes of paddling/pedalling." Keep a compass on deck so you can demonstrate your smart enough to find your way back to shore.


----------



## Shorty

Theres some good points there Ant, i can't help thinking about a link someone posted the other week from fishraider or some place,,some boaties rescued a kayaker fishing by himself,fell out and could not get back in,,,he was in a real bad way,,

I think we will see a few fatalities over the next few years ,,its been a matter of luck that we have not yet.


----------



## Shufoy

This is the thread we all knew was coming, but noone wanted to talk about...

My initial reaction was how BS this is. But after reading the comments posted, and having a good think about it myself, I can see why something like this would be introduced. I hate the idea, but in more of a selfish way, than a realistic one.

It's true probably, and this is my own assumption not hard proven scientific proof, which whilst offtopic would, be an interesting poll to run Mods, that probably 75% of Kayak Fishers will never go more than 3km out from protected waters. In Perth, this WOULD be the case, it is really the _"hardcore"_ (yes maybe a self indulgent term, but fits) of the sport who travel these distances, and further, and post on forums like this. There is a large amount of diversity in people who own kayaks, from the family buying $300 Tacklemegasupamarket style plastic jobby's for the summer trips to the beach, with a handline and reel pulling in herring and whiting, to the super fit, ocean wise youngster (or veteran!) in probably the most seaworthy and purpose built fishing yaks of them all chasing fast moving pelagics a gazillion miles offshore. So the reality is, the new South Australian regulations disadvantage only a tiny percentage of kayak owners, whilst protecting the majority, also leaving a door open for those who apply for an exemption. Now this exemption would really be the key issue i would think. Who would make the decision, under what grounds could you be refused or gifted such an exemption, and what rules and regulations are they basing these exemptions around.

All pastimes such as ours are eventually subject to some kind of regulation, especially where there is a high element of risk, chance of death, or large resource demand if it goes wrong. Ultimatley the media are our enemies in this battle in sensationalised reporting, also pollies who smell votes, or public support. If you asked the average Joe in the street if these were sensible rules, do you think the majority would say they weren't? Can we all say with confidence that ALL offshore kayak fishers are fully equipped to deal with an emergency situation if it arises? It may not even be you with the emergency, you may be dealing with another yakker, miles from shore, in rough conditions, who's yak has just sunk.. I feel confident in my own ability, fitness, and the condition of my yak and gear, but i can't speak for everyone else. If i had to go by the rules of the local Sea Kayaking groups, my yak wouldn't even be considered sea worthy by there regulations, and i would have to undergo many trips in progressivley tougher conditions, progressing only by the approval of well trained and experienced mentors, untill i was considered able and equipped to go out this far. Would this kind of structured training pathway be entirely bad for our sport? I'm sure the Sea Kayaking community would love for this rule to come in to play if everyone had to undergo training to their standard, and don't laugh at this idea, you may cry later...

*I'm not for these rules*, and being in a state where it isin't the rule, it's easy to comment. I would suggest to the gentleman seeing his local member tomorrow, ask him exactly what the exemption will entail, and how exactly people will be able to go offshore on fishing kayaks. Also set a firm line of communication with him by email or phone, and discuss and offer alternatives, and exemption parameters that may be achievable to the community. It may well be too late to stop this legislation, but as this could well set a new benchmark, it would be better to start working on making them workable in the SA case, so if/when other states do look and see what rules are in place, and possibly adopting them or similar rules in there own state, the exemplary procedure is clear and well defined, whilst also being realistic yet achievable. Also i say well constructed letters to the relevant politicians, and correctly formatted petitions are excellent tools in building the support of your representatives in power, and ultimatley getting them on side in negotiations over rule changes or alterations. Just make sure they are correctly setout, as if not they won't even get a look in. There is lots of info on the net for this.

I think personally it's inevitable that the sport becomes regulated, watching all the other craft (Boats) doing what i'm doing over the last few years being subjected to more and more stringent safety and training guidelines in our state, and watching yakkers dodge the bullet so to speak. Also as has been said, as the popularity increases, so will the opportunities for bad press and loss of life, the growth of forums around this country is testament to this boom. Running a forum myself, with many members and a growing community of super keen yakkers, i wonder how i would feel if a new yakker who read my posts thinking he would head offshore and bag some snapper for his first trip and got in trouble and drowned. I bet i would wish these laws had come in sooner.

P.S. Page 6!! Ba-da-bing-badda-boom! AKFF Teams what?! :shock:


----------



## YakN00b

So according to leftie ant only the elite should be allowed out further than 2nm? You would make a fine overlord with that mindset.


----------



## azzaroo

f...... me, soon yo will have to join a surf lifesaving club ,not go out on the 'big' days and wear f... floaties to go for a surf, f... thier f..... rules i mean whats the difference between 2.8 km's and 3.5? why not just throw every yakker in the bag and be done with it, we'll all join a yak club, call it akff and earn points towards our licence through posts :shock:  :shock:


----------



## deano

SA was the first state to try and clamp down on the freedom of association between undesirables (with the bikie laws) and now this. They stuffed up the bikie laws (thrown out by the court), and they probably stuffed this up as well. Sounds like time for a change a government to me.


----------



## grinner

ant, i think your solution is probably intellectually correct but i just cant bring myself to swallow it.
you are right that this IS inevitable.
however experience has taught me that working with the authorities usually leads to them extending their tentacles into every aspect of your life/sport/career.

we tried working with the medical regulators 20 yrs ago and now i pay 10,000 dollars a year to have my surgery accredited by an authority who go over the place nitpicking points which have nothing to do with patient care.
i was pulled up for not having a dust cover over my tongue depressors, not having a slippery when wet sign in the female toilets, and having the fax machine in a place where patients may catch a glimpse of confidential incoming faxes, as well as not having a system in place to ensure the toys in the kids area were washed and this fact was recorded.

if you RUN UP THE WHITE FLAG you will have 
paid for llicences of kayaks
a compulsory insurance scheme
waterworthiness tests, compulsory radios and compulsory radio licences
exclusions from areas where go fast people want to hoon
age limits, wt limits, etc

i think we all wish jessica well(i know i do) but she is far more likely to get into trouble than a yakker .
you have to be very careful of the thin edge of the wedge and remember that the beauracracy is all about power and control and very little about service.


----------



## MrX

I think Ant put it very well.

If we want to have a general rant about over-regulation from big brother in our nanny state, there is no shortage of regs to bitch about in the SA Harbours and Navigation Regulations 2009 (SA). There are 340 pages of the buggers.

But do you think Reg 13 is really aimed at those SA kayak fishermen who venture 4km and more off shore? So far, on this topic only a couple of SA kayak fisherman has owned up to being personally effected. Was reg 13 intended to stop WaterBaby or Skorgard fishing out wide without permission. Was Patrick Conlon sitting around in a cabinet meeting saying: "That F*%$ WaterBaby from down the road goes fishing way off-shore in his kayak, and we gotta stop the bastard!!" Or was reg 13 drafted by faceless bureaucrats who had no inkling about where WaterBaby fishes, and real concerns being elswhere. Are hard-core kayak fishos the targeted species of Reg 13, or just an unintended by-catch of attempts to regulate the sea-kayaking craze, as the result of recent publicised accidents?

Do WaterBaby & Skorgard (and any others who have not yet owned up) have to dress in camouflage gear, and scour the horizon for water police before the crossing the invisible line 2nm off the coast? Will the authorities be out there hunting for them, to slap on the $160 expiation fee? Or will life for them go on as normal.

My guess is there was no consultation because nobody in the bureaucracy thought Reg 13 could possibly generate any controversy. They have probably never even heard of the AKFF (ignorant nutters!).

If I'm wrong, and the SA authorities actually enforce the reg against yak fishos, I suspect we will get no sympathy from sea-kayak groups, or even from stink-boating fishing community. I get the impression they don't think we should be out that far.


----------



## Ranger

I am one of the SA kayakers this law wont interfere with, as I do not have the experience, the equipment or the correct kayak for venturing out into the blue!

I'd like to reproduce my own opinion I posted elsewhere about this subject, although I will need to change it slightly so that it makes sense, given it's only half of a conversation I was having with others!

We can whinge and complain all we want, but keep in mind, sometimes we bring this action on ourselves:


> On Saturday 30 July 2005 two men were reported missing in Backstairs Passage, the stretch of water between Cape Jervis on the mainland of South Australia and Kangaroo Island. Their bodies and capsized kayak were found the following day.......





> AN independent review of a school kayaking trip which ended in 15 teenagers being rescued off Victor Harbor has found preparations were below standard......





> South Australian police are searching for a person who is missing after a kayaking accident at Victor Harbor, south of Adelaide.....


Then laws are changes to protect the stupid from themselves, and when this happens we complain about the lawmakers. Why is no-one complaining about the idiots who caused these laws to be introduced!

Anyone wanna discuss the two guys who hired kayaks and tried to paddle to KI?

Now it's time for us all to deal with it, face the consequences incurred by the leniency and stupidity of the past, and suck it up!

I am now a kayaker, I'm not overly impressed by this new law, but I will definately be adhering to it. In actual fact, I don't really want to take my kayak out further than 3.5km given my level of inexperience, as I think I would likely become a stupidity statistic. If I need to travel out further than 2nm, I'll use the boat instead.

One other thing I'd like to add, before anyone gets too carried away. Many may not like this new law, and they may even be deciding to ignore it! If so, your actions are your own, and you are each responsible for your own actions.

I am not defending this law, and I do not believe proper consultation was performed prior to the introduction of this law, but I didn't jump up and down either, when I heard about this law!

I am also a boater, and I would not want to apply for a permit each time I go out in my boat, but bear in mind, with a boat I also have to pay GST, fuel excise, ramp fees, registration, insurance, licensing, save the Murray levies, etc. I'm not overly happy about all of this either, but I DO comply with ALL these laws too!

I'm forced to carry appropriate safety equipment, my boat must be seaworthy, I must be licensed and competent, I must adhere to speed restrictions, maritime law, marine and Harbours compliance, I'm restricted in alcohol consumption.

None of the above applies to kayakers though! So as the law previously stood, any idiot, of any age, with any level of experience, can purchase, hire or borrow any kayak and go for it without restriction, other than they must wear a pfd!

Just look at the two who hired a kayak and tried to cross Backstairs Passage, to Kangaroo Island. Arguably one of the roughest waterways in the state! They had no idea, and were found dead the next day, yet according to legislation at the time, what they were doing was fine!

Also consider that many kayaks just aren't designed for usage in unprotected waters. Mine comes with a disclaimer (amongst others) stating:
-Hobie Kayaks are not designed for fast moving water
-The user of this product should understand that participating in kayaking may involve serious injury or death

Maybe consider that the law (or lack thereof) as it previously stood wasn't quite right either!

If you are the type of kayaker who does ventures into unprotected waters, there MAY be an avenue available to you worth exploring if you are not happy with this new law, so that you can continue with your sport. It may not be what you desire, and it may inconvenience, but isn't it better than not going out at all?

I figure many kayakers to be like myself, utilising kayaks only for inshore, estuary, river, creek and lake usage, whilst never venturing more than 3.7 kms (2nm) from shore. Wouldn't it be interesting to get some solid figures on this, to see just how many kayakers there are in SA, and what proportion of the SA user group are actually being inconvenienced?

I also find it unlikely that the government has introduced this law trying to get kayakers off the water! Attempting to regulate kayaking YES, possibly increasing revenue from kayaking yes, but not preventing kayaking, canoeing or personal watercraft.

If the majority of kayakers aren't happy with the law, maybe consider taking it up with local MPs and the Minister for Transport. Petition, campaign and push for change as many lobby groups do! Maybe approach kayak manufacturers, retailers and the media for further support. I tend to suspect the voice wont turn out to be as loud as we might at first imagine.

I believe the government have gotten it wrong! They didn't apply correct consultation and they have inadvertantly restricted the wrong usergroup in their blanket regulation of this sport.

I DO believe the legislation has been introduced for the correct reasons, but it also needs some fine tuning to clear things up and make it more user friendly for those who do have a level of experience and competence.

I DO believe that it was done to prevent injury and death, to make this sport safer, and to prevent expenditure on unneccesary use of emergency services.

I do believe it will inconvenience some, just as all laws do!

I do believe it will be ridiculously difficult to enforce as there is no requirement for kayaks to even carry navigational equipment, so how is the kayaker to know when they have reached the 2nm limit? That in itself I believe would stand a good chance of being a legitimate defence in any court!

I hope this helps to explain myself a little better.


----------



## azzaroo

you dont really give a f... do you rager


----------



## spooled1

Like Ant and a couple of others I'm being fatalistic on this one.

Eventually yak fishing will be regulated just like many other activities.
Its very easy to jump up and down screaming at Government but what happens when they rip the heart from your chest in a bitter conflict because we were expecting to win the fight? (1) You're exhausted (2) There's nothing to fall back on because all your energy was wasted in the heat of battle.

If yak anglers approach this matter with the view that legislation is likely to happen, we're automatically starting on a better foot. If we presume the Government will be directly or indirectly working against us, we can prepare and set the benchmark criteria and work on strategies to ensure that we get the best possible deal if the path of maximum resistance fails.

If push came to shove, I would rather have a competency test and be forced to jump through hoops than lose my right to fish +2NM altogether.

The most important thing to remember is this: Who would you rather see amending the laws, fellow yak anglers in cooperation with government agencies or government agencies that refuse to deal with us?

Once again, this issue right now only affects a select few individuals. Let those who are most affected set the tone in the first instance and allow them to address the matter in a way they see fit. If these guys need our help, we should put our hands up to support them as a united front.


----------



## YakN00b

Every single one of you who agrees with this crap is missing the point. Read Grinners last post again because that is your future.

I have been personally involved at the sharpish end of similar things before and this WILL be the start of more regulation than you can throw a stick at.

Every single one of you who is thinking "so what I never go out there" is playing into their hands because you will not fight this untill the next step comes along and ALL kayakkers have to comply with all kinds of regulation and by then it will be too late.

They are counting on the fact that we are to lazy and complacent to make a noise about this.


----------



## ArWeTherYet

WTF!!! I spend all this time getting a hardcore off shore fish killing ski and they want to ban off shore kayaking......Grrrr. Wait a sec its only in South Australia...... phew I dont fish that far south.  . I'll just go back to being apathetic and pretend it wont happen here.

Thats sucks guys, I read in the Sea Kayaking forum that there is a push by certain kayaking clubs and instructors in NSW, to make all kayakers be fully accredited and members of a kayaking group.

Keep us informed on whats happening down there so we can prepare for the fight here.


----------



## yakyakker

fishnfreak said:


> "Canoes, kayaks or similar small human powered vessels (other than a rowboat) and personal watercraft (PWC, generally known as jet skis, are now restricted to semi-protected waters (that is less than two nautical miles from the coast).


Seeing as only human powered vessels are banned, do you think we could fool them if we wore gorilla suits past the 2 NM limit?


----------



## justcrusin

> The most important thing to remember is this: Who would you rather see amending the laws, fellow yak anglers in cooperation with government agencies or government agencies that refuse to deal with us?


Well said Dan.

Don't fight the system make it work for you.

Cheers Dave


----------



## YakN00b

justcrusin said:


> The most important thing to remember is this: Who would you rather see amending the laws, fellow yak anglers in cooperation with government agencies or government agencies that refuse to deal with us?
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Dan.
> 
> Don't fight the system make it work for you.
> 
> Cheers Dave
Click to expand...

Thats a pipe dream


----------



## grinner

justcrusin said:


> The most important thing to remember is this: Who would you rather see amending the laws, fellow yak anglers in cooperation with government agencies or government agencies that refuse to deal with us?
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Dan.
> 
> Don't fight the system make it work for you.
> 
> Cheers Dave
Click to expand...

thats a noble sentiment but i'll tell you how the bureaucracy works in reality. they'll get some of you guys (quite possibly the mods from this forum) and invite you to a task force to thrash out ideas etc re regulations. this will establish you as the fall guys. please guys , be very careful not to get into bed with city hall. i know you mods have our best interests at heart.
powerhungry regulators do not. it will end in tears.
i have no problem with them regulating fast cars...they may hit my kids and kill them
i have no problems with them regulating jetskis... they may hit me and break one of my rods.
but a kayaker would have to be the ONE sport where i really think , if you lack common sense,you are only a danger to yourself. big brother cant legislate for common sense. all he can do is hassle the people who already have it. boofheads are going to be boofheads without akff joining in to do the regulators dirty work and take the fall.


----------



## Swamp

These laws are really crap. Especially if they if it is aimed at preventing incidents
2Nm is damn near in the middle of backstair passage









Perhaps a proactive approach is needed. Maybe offshore yakers from other states need to lobby there state govt to introduce legislation regarding kayaking? That way we drive the decision making process rather than getting left out.


----------



## MrX

> "Every single one of you who agrees with this crap is missing the point. Read Grinners last post again because that is your future.
> 
> Every single one of you who is thinking "so what I never go out there" is playing into their hands because you will not fight this untill the next step comes along and ALL kayakkers have to comply with all kinds of regulation and by then it will be too late."


I don't think anyone here is running the argument "so what I never go out there". The argument seems to be more like: We are all going to be regulated some time anyway, so let's make sure they get it right.

The SA reg appears to be a reaction to some publicised (non-fisho) kayaking tragedies - someone must have lobbied for the Government to do something about it. It is a pretty half-arsed regulation - it bans any punter from operating a yak more that 3.7km offshore, without the approval of some bureaucrat.

I suspect if any serious regulator engaged in a proper community consultation process, the end result would have ended up with a far stricter a regime than that.

I suspect that any attempt to argue that the SA regulation goes too far, on the basis that a handful of hardcore kayak fishos would be unfairly impacted, will not get you very far on the community consultation level. Jo public would say: "anyone who goes out that far into the shark infested waters off SA to fish from a lump of plastic is stark raving m m m mad". Boat fishos might join the chorus. I doubt sea kayak clubs would offer us any support. Any publicity generated by a group of yakkers protesting the reg, highlighting what we do, and demanding to be fined, might just backfire.

The strongest argument against the reg is Grinner's: "you have to be very careful of the thin edge of the wedge and remember that the beuracracy is all about power and control and very little about service".

But I don't think line of argument would compel the legislators to repeal a reg. (For one thing, they would be out of a job).

The better approach is to figure out what it really means - and work with it. WaterBaby (and presumably others) are investigating how the new regulation is applied to responsible yakkers who like to fish out wide. Let's see what the feedback is.

My guess is that no resources will be employed out there to enforce the reg at all anyway - because it just not important. It will only become an issue if there is an incident - someone gets in strife, and requires rescue services (or worse). The government spokesperson will point to the reg and say: "you shouldn't have been out there - cop this fine". Jo and Jane public will nod their approval.


----------



## grumpyrider

Imagine you get caught by a wind change that blows you over the 2NM line, and someone comes and finds you. The authorities say "you went over the 2NM line, we are going to fine you buckets of money". Your defence may be that you had no choice, and you did not go out intentionally. But the law says you can't go over the line. It doesn't say anything about intent.
So bang, you pay.

Think this can't happen? Is anybody aware of the road laws in NSW (and I assume in other states), where if you have a single vehicle accident, you can be fined for dangerous driving, and many people have. Check out the motorcycle discussion groups on the web. It happens far too often to be just chance. 
And remember these are law abiding citizens who happen to have some bad luck, as yakkers will have if the idiots keep getting into trouble.

By the way, I agree with other posts that this is a law intended to limit the idiots. Its not uncommon for governments to create knee-jerk laws to seem to be doing something when a high publicity incident occurs.
Everybody says you can't legislate against fools, but they keep trying!

What can we do? The ONLY thing to do is to apply enough POLITICAL pressure to get the pollies to make changes. The bureaucrats wont change things. And the only way to apply political pressure is to get enough people shouting at the pollies, persistently, especially in marginal seats, to get their attention. How much is enough? You have to get the press interested for more than five minutes, their normal attention span. Then it looks like Joe Public is agitated, and that will cause the pollies to at least look in your direction. Thats a start.

However, I'm afraid that the usual Australian apathy will apply and we won't do anything. Again.


----------



## feelfree09

we all know something must be done. by all i mean every last member of this forum, no matter where you live because sooner or later this will affect you. the question is this, do we bend over and cop it or do we get off our collective arse's and attempt to do something? at least if we do something we can all say we tried. i'm not 100% sure what the best course of action is, whether we write hundreds of letters, or e-mails or whether we need to physically go down to conlons office and make them take notice. but i refuse to just cop a poorly thought out law which has had no input or consultation with the affected user group. however, all the raving and ranting in the world WILL NOT help our cause if it is limited to this forum. if we have 100 individuals trying to fight this 100 different ways were screwed, but if we have a group goal and a group plan we may find that this exemption ruling may be easier to obtain. there is no sense in arguing right or wrong here, we have to work within the parameters we have been set and give ourselves a voice when they try to pull more crap like this again.

water baby let us know how you get on mate and thankyou for being the first to get in there and get things started.


----------



## Feral

grumpyrider said:


> Think this can't happen? Is anybody aware of the road laws in NSW (and I assume in other states), where if you have a single vehicle accident, you can be fined for dangerous driving, and many people have. Check out the motorcycle discussion groups on the web. It happens far too often to be just chance.


Motorcycle riders? Doubt there would be much argument with the that, because they probably were! :lol:

But you can probably at least save yourself the money on getting an Epirb, if your going to get fined anyway, probably wont be much more of a fine from the Judge for two offences.


----------



## azzaroo

MrX said:


> My guess is that no resources will be employed out there to enforce the reg at all anyway - because it just not important. It will only become an issue if there is an incident - someone gets in strife, and requires rescue services (or worse). The government spokesperson will point to the reg and say: "you shouldn't have been out there - cop this fine". Jo and Jane public will nod their approval.


bad guess mr x like all walks of life its getting busier,more cars,more politicians,more rules, and it sure as s... is getting more busy on the water.

i'm still thinking of answers but dont ralax and say things like nobody's going to enforce these rules.Do you know why they make rules? TO enforce them.


----------



## Feral

I looked up the waters under control of the SA government, from what I found they do have only a 3 nautical mile limit except for some small areas, which is mostly harbours and bays. IE Whilst you have to cross the 1 nautical mile gap before you hit federal water, once there the state rules do not apply. It might mean you have to "mothership" to fish further out, or you can risk getting caught in the "gap" if you scoot across quick!. Of course if the local "powers that be" are having a slow day, they may just sit around waiting for you to come home, you cant stay out there for ever!

http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/33697/state_waters.pdf


----------



## Peril

Has anyone contacted the local seakayaking association to see what they know? They may well have been consulted and be in favour as they are the ones most likely to be given conditional approval.

Of course, our craft don't meet their idea of seaworthiness. However, for the hardcore few that do get out there it may be worth joining up to see if you can piggyback on whatever exemption they can get. Of course, you'll have to do all their training, probably not a bad thing, and will need access to a craft acceptable to them


----------



## varp

Ant wrote -



> I'm going to make some deeply unpopular statements here.
> 
> I think this level of regulation was inevitable. I actually think in the long run it is going to be good for the sport, as it will compel those people who are serious about fishing offshore into getting serious about fighting this, and working WITH the regulators and actually helping develop a framework that will enable offshore kayaking.
> 
> If I was serious about fishing unprotected waters, I would be:
> 
> # joining a sea kayaking club
> # completing open water training of some description
> # look at getting swimming certifications of some description (bronze medallion etc)
> 
> THEN I would be looking at talking to the club or state body about making an approach to Dept Transport and negotiating an exemption. If you can front the negotiating table, showing that you have the skills to manage yourself in an open water situation, and get yourself out of the shit if / when (and it will be when, not if) something occurs, then you might have half a chance.
> 
> There is a lot of 'nanny state' type comments going on in this thread, and to a certain extent I agree. But consider this:
> 
> # You can't just drive a car and go flat out, sans licence, just because you want to.
> # You can't go SCUBA diving without a ticket, just because you want to.
> # You can't go shooting wherever you want, without a licence, just because you want to.
> 
> The uncomfortable truth is that this sport is exploding at an unprecedented rate. The side effect of that is going to be that people who are unskilled and unfit will possibly be attracted to the sport, and potentially put themselves in harm's way. There have already been kayaking deaths in SA - and while I have no hard data to definitively say this was due to inexperience, it is my very strong suspicion.
> 
> You'll also note that there are threads on this site regarding deep water remounting of your yak, and the scary result was very few people have practiced getting back into their yak.
> 
> There is also a 3+ page thread on here ripping to shreds the 16 year old girl who is attempting to sail around the world. Consensus seems to be that she is inexperienced and shouldn't go. How can we be saying that on one hand but then arcing up about a regulation that will potentially prevent inexperienced operators putting themselves in harms way?
> 
> And a reality check as well - who of the SA crew has actually been more than 2NM offshore of late? I would suggest very, very few. I'm sure there will be a few that have, but I suspect very much the exception rather than the rule.
> 
> Unfortunately this type of legislation is going to be the way of the future. I think we have two options:
> 
> 1/ either get organised and get serious about working within the framework, improve the skill level of kayak operators, and be seen as a skilled, organised group of people that take their safety and preparation seriously, or
> 2/ jump up and down and make noise about how unfair this is.
> 
> I somehow suspect Option #1 will get a better result.


I'm a bit rushed and would say more, but I think Ant is right on the money. I started out yakking without understanding the limitations, but after numerous close calls I'm very concerned that others getting into the sport will not be so lucky.

I support this move.


----------



## MrX

> "bad guess mr x like all walks of life its getting busier,more cars,more politicians,more rules, and it sure as s... is getting more busy on the water. i'm still thinking of answers but dont ralax and say things like nobody's going to enforce these rules.Do you know why they make rules? TO enforce them."


I could be wrong Azzaroo (I often am), but I just can't imagine the SA's maritime authorities sending enforcers 4km out to sea looking for the odd yakker breaching reg 13, to hit him with a $160 "expiation fee". I think reg 13 would rate a long way down the order of priority at the morning meeting.

It might be different in SA, but there is bugger-all traffic 4km off Sydney. The authorities keep themselves very busy where the boats are - in the harbours and in close, checking safety equipment and rego docs, and enforcing alcohol and speed restrictions.


----------



## spooled1

MrX said:


> It might be different in SA, but there is bugger-all traffic 4km off Sydney. The authorities keep themselves very busy where the boats are - in the harbours and in close, checking safety equipment and rego docs, and enforcing alcohol and speed restrictions.
Click to expand...

Sydney is only one part of a greater Australian coastine that incorporates tens of thousands of submerged habitats. The reason there might be limited boat traffic 4km off Sydney might not be the same reason there is higher regulation of boat traffic at Azzaroos home turf on the mid north coast or or my area 300k's north.

I totally verify what Azzaroo says as to how three different government agencies appear to manage their staff in certain oceanic areas. Just because the 2NM zone outside sydney appears unregulated, doesn't mean that other areas are.


----------



## Guest

> they'll get some of you guys (quite possibly the mods from this forum) and invite you to a task force to thrash out ideas etc re regulations. this will establish you as the fall guys.


I hope not. No disrespect to the AKFF mods, but kayak fishing in Aus is far far bigger than the AKFF and the community gets more and more splintered by the day. I'd say less than 10% of the kayak fishing customers from my neck of the woods has even heard of the AKFF, let alone any other Aus yak fishing site. No single website is the hub of the Aus yak fishing scene (not anymore, anyway). The sport has outgrown that some time ago, and I don't think it's a great idea for any of the website personalities to try and position themselves as spokepeople for the community at large. I wouldn't want the responsiblity either. Grinner is right - I've seen similar scenarios make fall guys out of 'volunteers' before. Observe fishnet, and poor old Bear and Rev, who's reputations have been ruined by becoming 'spokepeople' and being caught in the middle. Go read the 'radioactive yarra' thread for an example. 
http://fishnet.com.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=94265&start=60&f=1

The ability to operate a website/forum does not automatically qualify anyone for leadership in the political realm. I'd much rather that if any political manueving (that is suppose to speak for us all) be done by official kayaking organisations on behalf of the kayak scene at large, not quasi unofficial groups of volunteers who's only real qualification is an awe-inspiring amount of forum posts. Either way, this comment (and the related blog at yakabout) aside, I'll be staying out of it. Me and politics... we don't mix.


----------



## sunshiner

The question seems to boil down to whether it's better to (1) organise and get involved with the people who make the rules, (2) just lie back and take it when bad rules are made, or (3) fight the battle after undesirable rules are promulgated.

As far as I'm aware, the body which presently has the best chance of representing kayak fishers is AKFF. We've already broken the ice on this one when Red and I with input from some other Queenslanders provided a submission in late July to the Queensland Government about Fisheries Strategy.

The link to the topic is provided below, but please take a look at the PDF which carried our submission (link included in Red's latest post on that topic). It may prove thought provoking. At least it can be proven that we have told someone in the Queensland bureaucracy that kayak fishers exist, that we're serious and professional about our pastime and that we have a means of organizing and communicating. In turn, they can communicate with us if they wish. If necessary we can refer the submission to our local members and/or the media should the government be shown, in future, to have proceeded without consultation.

See http://www.akff.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=29600

But does AKFF speak for all kayak fishers? I don't think so, but no other body seems to be able to.


----------



## water_baby

Just a quick update people.

My meeting with the minister has been delayed til the 13th at my request (ive got to go to Brisbane all next week for work :? )

I have also been in touch with the office of the CEO of the Dept of Transport to enquire about the redtape I will need to process for an exemption. Once i get a response back from the Dept ill advise progress.

I must say a big thank you to the people who have offered moral support and those who have offered their experiences with this kind of thing. Its heartening to know other people have the same thoughts


----------



## spooled1

Yakkers certainly are regulated in South Africa. Are they regulated anywhere in the USA or NZ? I don't know...

As individuals, this is something we can possibly investigate... If we can identify what's already in place, why it was implemented, where it is, what's working and what isn't, we'll be even more familiar with our own little universe. Just because it isn't directly related to this country right now, related knowledge can often be a very useful defence.

I do agree with Josh and Grinner in that any Australian political yakking organisation would be best served if it comprises a wider group of yak anglers than those that frequent an internet forum or two.


----------



## MrX

> "Just because the 2NM zone outside sydney appears unregulated, doesn't mean that other areas are."


No worries Dan - I can only speak from my own experience. A 2nm zone for yakkers might well be patrolled in other places.

But I just can't imagine a regulation with such a limited possible impact being taken seriously enough by a government agency to spend limited resources to rigorously enforce it - given the distance any patrol would have to head offshore to find an offender. Looks more like type of reg that is published on a government website, and in some kayak safety booklets along with pfd requirements, plus kayak hire shops, sea-yak clubs and the like. If there is an incident more than 2nm out, it will be highlighted, and the govts arse will be covered.

Well done Water-baby. Interested to hear what they have to say.


----------



## karnage

MrX said:


> Looks more like type of reg that is published on a government website, and in some kayak safety booklets along with pfd requirements


true...look at murd for example, the bloke has been yak fishing offshore for 20 years and he wouldnt know what a pfd is and has never coped a fine :shock:


----------



## grinner

occy, you say dont stick your head in the sand.

i say try and fly beneath the radar. .sticking you head in the sand has saved many a yabbie. keep very very quiet, maybe they'll(the authorities) go away, we need to have a secret handshake to make sure undercover agents dont infiltrate our forum.

where do i buy one of those stealths by the way


----------



## CatfishKeith

I see this as a good thing and a bad thing..

I think we all know that the ocean is a dangerous place, and if you get into trouble I could and most probably will end badly

This site carries disclaimers and warnings about Yakking.

So I think we can all agree the above.

I think the governments' objective is to protect people from their own stupidity misadventure and follies, as anyone can buy a yak and head for the South Pole without any experience, knowledge of equipment.

I also think that the Gov are not stopping people from heading over the horizon they just want it done by people that 
1) Have the right equipment
2) Have the experience 
Before heading out into the ocean

So I think is a good idea the incorporate memberships and provide training and certification. This way we can get exemptions from the general legislation and at the same time give new comers the opportunity to get the certification/accreditation to apply for exemption.


----------



## Rose

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## spooled1

Just to clear something up, when I discussed a political kayak angling lobby group I think a number of places should be reserved for those who directly represent internet forums like AKFF and KFDU. I also think there should be places reserved for: Industry reps, surf, open water, sweetwater and closed water specialist anglers, a tourney organiser, a skills trainer, as well as someone who is prepared to speak on behalf of the national yak fishing club scene as a whole.

Even though there would be crossover, this kind of lineup would probably carry more weight and would represent a larger group of yak anglers. Now who's got an acronym?


----------



## MrX

> "&#8230;around Sydney at least it's impossible to spend a day on the water without seeing one or more of their boats&#8230;"


G'day Occy. I agree with what you say mate, and I see the Maritime, Police etc boats all over the harbour, Pittwater, Hawkesbury etc. I have met up with a few, checking out my stinkboat rego, safety equipment, fishing licences etc. Always found them friendly, and good for a bag of stickers for the kiddies. I have not seen them in our usual inshore yak places, like out 2-3 km at longie - but it would make sense for them pay a visit, because there are often a pile of boats out there. That said, it's pretty quiet 3.7 km out - in the shipping lanes.



> "They did it when the new EPIRB's came into line and just floated around giving people fines so I don't see why this would be any different. What you don't understand about the S.A. government is they are revenue driven in a very bg way. Sad but true."


G'day Darren. I see your point, but EPIRB requirements have a pretty wide impact - presumably required by every stinker that goes offshore in SA? It makes sense that when you bring in a new reg like that, you publicise it loudly, then enforce it stringently. You need a licence to operate a stinker in NSW, there are safety regs, and the community expects them to be enforced.

Reg 35 has a very narrow impact. If it is a revenue raiser, how much do you reckon they budgeted to collect from hard-core offshore yakkers flouting the law? They would have to bag quite few $160 expiation fees from per journey out past the 2nm mark, just to cover the petrol expenses. I think if all they want is the money, they will look for the lower hanging fruit, closer to base.

I don't want to appear argumentative about this, I just think we are getting dirty about a toothless little arse-covering regulation - you wont even notice it exists until someone gets into serious trouble out wide. If the government genuinely wanted to regulate us, they would have taken it much further than a 2nm restriction without permission. If we kick up a stink about this reg, someone might get interested in doing a proper job - licences, red tape, channel restrictions etc. Then we would have something to get really excited about. But if reg 35 became is the benchmark for other states, I could live with it (depending on what WaterBaby comes back with).


----------



## Marty75

Maybe the guy who attacked Rann was a kayaker :lol:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/6135811/premier-shows-attack-wounds/


----------



## azzaroo

MrX said:


> I don't want to appear argumentative about this, I just think we are getting dirty about a toothless little arse-covering regulation - you wont even notice it exists until someone g
> 
> 
> MrX said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to appear argumentative about this, I just think we are getting dirty about a toothless little arse-covering regulation - you wont even notice it exists until someone gets into serious trouble out wide. If the government genuinely wanted to regulate us, they would have taken it much further than a 2nm restriction without permission. If we kick up a stink about this reg, someone might get interested in doing a proper job - licences, red tape, channel restrictions etc. Then we would have something to get really excited about. But if reg 35 became is the benchmark for other states, I could live with it (depending on what WaterBaby comes back with).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrX said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I just can't imagine a regulation with such a limited possible impact being taken seriously enough by a government agency to spend limited resources to rigorously enforce it - given the distance any patrol would have to head offshore to find an offender. Looks more like type of reg that is published on a government website, and in some kayak safety booklets along with pfd requirements, plus kayak hire shops, sea-yak clubs and the like. If there is an incident more than 2nm out, it will be highlighted, and the govts arse will be covered.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

if this toothless regulation is so inconsequential and "you could live with it" then dont waste any more of your time playing it down. as if they are going to send 'kayak busting patrols' out there..but if they happen to be cruising and your out there you can bet your sweet patootie thier gonna bust your sore little kayak arse.

once again sorry for no positive impact statements yet, but i cant not reply to some of this crap.


----------



## redracingski

Unfortunately things like this happen when people take things for granted and do nothing when faced with treat (Im unsure of your situation in SA as it may of come out of the blue).

Similar situation to us in NSW when everybody sits of their ars.s are ignores the treats from government/green group re national parks.

Once things are legislated your f..d


----------



## water_baby

quick update

spoke to the CEO's representative in charge of the redtape for exemptions, and he said that because the change was so new they havent finalised the paperwork required, nor have they set standards yet (if they even choose to). looks like it will be 2 weeks according to him before we have a set of rules.

this seems to me to be perfect, so assuming i can get in their ear a little regarding offshore fishing and kayaks we could get our concerns raised and dealt with in a manner best suiting us while they are still working it out.

why they would change a law and not have the frameworks already set is beyond me, but im no polly 

ill keep you posted on progress...


----------



## RedPhoenix

Unfortunately, due to the change in ownership of this web site and the lack of response by the owners to my requests to remove my email address from all administrative-level notifications and functionality, I have decided to remove my posts on AKFF. Thank you for the great times, the fantastic learning experiences and the many many fish. If you are desperate for the old content of this particular post, it is available below base64 encoded and bzip2 compressed.

Red.

----

QlpoOTFBWSZTWTO8KqoAABnfgAAQUKWAErCAUAq/r//gIACARMgBNDKMJ6hk9JtTEMNDJkDIxBiZNDTEUkHmxqm69TP89IapR6UZTUF1DdmU874BWL9EglRGwDHBOdtNmGL3zdbsSvuMjiENakfl05hWVzFpUxrzSEIOTsTmXLETraIoMjl4cMsvfwzfKX11gXHHT8Uh4GQxh2P0IJQEU9+gJ2igJahl/F3JFOFCQM7wqqg=


----------



## widsa

These regs wont save lives or change a thing. Look at martin b in tasmania his guns werent registered, but they made the gun laws tuffer.do you think criminals register their guns? So even if we have to do training and pay permits, the only difference it makes is we will have to PAY!Nothing will stop someone with no experience going 5k off shore without permits if they choose to.


----------



## Scruffy

Hi Guys, there were to many replies for me to read all of them. I have sent an email to Paul Conlon MP requesting an exemption from these new laws pertaining to kayaks fishing in open water.I stated I was considering coming to South Aus to go kayak fishing and as I fish in open water I would need an exemption.If all members could send a email requesting an exemption from these laws it might help our SA Yakers get the law repealed or at least modified. I will let you know how I go with the application.
Cheers,
Terry.


----------



## azzaroo

any updates??


----------



## Scruffy

I received an email confirming that they have received the email I sent.Thats all so far.


----------



## Guest

Recieved this email today

"Good morning Kelvin

Thank you for your email regarding kayaking in unprotected waters. Applications for approval to operate past 2 nautical miles will be assessed by the Recreational Boating Unit.

To apply for approval to operate past 2 nautical miles, all you have to do is e-mail (or write to) the Recreational Boating Unit and include your full name, address & contact details, what type of vessel(s) you intend operating and whether your application is for an individual or a group. Details such as where/how far you travel, experience, qualifications, vessel design and what equipment you currently carry would also be useful.

We anticipate that the assessment of applications will commence in a few weeks time (to allow time to consult with stakeholders and to determine what conditions might be attached to the approvals), however in the meantime, compliance officers will focus on education of vessel operators rather than enforcement of this requirement on the water.

If you need any more information, please contact the Recreational Boating Unit at [email protected] or by telephone (08) 8343 2898.

Regards

Recreational Boating Unit

Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure

Phone: 08 8402 1705

08 8343 2898

Fax: 08 8343 2564

Email: [email protected]

Post: PO Box 1 , Walkerville SA 5081

Web: www.sa.gov.au

"


----------



## spooled1

I'm very glad they responded to you and had the professionalism to provide you with the foundations of a process and a key contact. That's got to be taken in a positive context.

The litmus test will be in how the applications are processed and exactly what dictates the approval/refusal process.

Again, all the best with it. I'm sure you guys will nut out a workable solution given the cards you've been dealt and thanks for keeping us in the loop ;-)


----------



## grinner

wonder how long it will be before we have to apply to a government ageny to take a leak.


----------



## solatree

grinner said:


> wonder how long it will be before we have to apply to a government ageny to take a leek.


Depends where you want to take it - If you want to bring it into SA from Qld - you will already need a permit - those leeks could have fruit fly ! ;-)


----------



## grinner

please stop taking the piss

epa will probably make portaloos mandatory on kayaks soon.

heres another silly reg from qld. all vessels over 5 m must carry a fire extinguisher, fair enough.
now apparently these must be inspect by a licenced fire service officer and tagged as inspected every 6 months. the cost of an inspection is greater than the cost of a new cheap extinguisher at bcf. so now our landfills can fill up with toxic chemicals.
urghhh. actually your probably not supposed to just put it in the bin you probably have to make a special trip to the dump to dispose of it (and pay for this priveledge). so boofheads will probably just chuck the old one overboard.

when will they learn


----------



## HAWKEYE3

Check out the SA constitution if there is one, and also the Australian Constitution. Look for state boundaries also under the state legislation. You may find that SA waters are limited to say 3nm and the govt may not have jurisdiction beyond that. The trick is to get past the state boundary and into Commonwealth waters.

Does anyone know a constitutional lawyer? It might pay to have a yarn with one of the professionals.

Regards

Hawkeye3


----------



## aido

that sounds harsh, i hope the rest of the states don't follow suit. they used to have registration for surfboards back in the day. the man...always trying to bring down the little guys ;-)


----------



## azzaroo

sounds good occy,
maybe we could collectively and progressively form some sort of submission ,[i know, it sounds like a pipedream!] with some good ideas and a good representative..akff maybe ? we may come up with some goodness!!
maybe start another thread...To whom it may.............
i'm with you though, get in sooner than later.


----------



## YakN00b

Heres my submission

Dear Oxygen Thief

GTF out of our business we dont want or need your interference.

Regards
Yakn00b


----------



## MrX

Occy, that a sensible plan if the SA yak fishos do indeed want to be properly regulated.

But keep in mind reg 35 appears to cover hard-core offshore yak fishos inadvertently. There are not many of them, and they would not have been on the radar of the bureaucrat who drafted the reg. It seems to be a reaction to publicised incidents involving ocean going sea kayakers - presumably the relevant stakeholders were sea-kayaking clubs/hire outfits - not a handful of "extreme" yak fishos.

The consensus here on this thread seems to be: "we don't want to be regulated at all", rather than: "we want to be properly regulated".

For those who don't want to be regulated, I caution jumping up and down in front of the relevant public servants alerting them to an issue that they had not considered - that people regularly go out in kayaks more than 2nm offshore for a fish, and currently there are no rules or regs on safety gear required. The public servants will be well aware that boaties who go out to the same place to do the same thing in (arguably) more seaworthy vessels are required to take minimum safety gear (type 1 PFDs, flares, V sheet, radio etc). How will they react to a bunch of indignant kayak fishermen?

For those who want to be properly regulated, any submission should be carefully put together. How would you accurately estimate the number of people effected in SA? Anecdotally, what number would you put on it?

Me? I think sometimes it is best to let sleeping dogs lie.

The affected SA yak fishos should decide if they really want to wake the regulation brute up. Fishnfreak and Waterbaby are genuinely effected, and they are investigating through proper channels, treading softly and sensibly. Kelvin must be genuinely effected too, and he has asked the question, and received a sensible response.

Lets see what happens.


----------



## Peril

occy said:


> By the way I had a PM from Dan (spooled1) who made a suggestion I think has merit. His view is that generating a stakeholder base under the AKFF banner is way too micro, and he believes it would be in yak anglers best interests to create an independent political lobby group. Think of it as an Australian Kayak Fishing Alliance which levearges off forums such as AKFF, KFDU, as well as other yak interests... etc...
> 
> Sounds the go to me.


I agree with Dan's argument about AKFF not being able to represent stakeholders. Remember there are already bodies out there that represent paddlers and have channels into government. Australian Canoeing (http://www.canoe.org.au/) is affiliated with the Australian Sports Commission and has affiliates in each state (eg PaddleNSW http://paddlensw.org.au/). It is likely (though I can't confirm this) that the SA legislation was developed in consultation with the SA affiliate, who would not want the actions of a few individuals to jeopardise their activities.

Creating a club in each state that affiliated with the local Australian Canoeing affiliate may well be a way of keeping in touch with and influencing any political developments


----------



## azzaroo

MrX said:


> But keep in mind reg 35 appears to cover hard-core offshore yak fishos inadvertently. There are not many of them, and they would not have been on the radar of the bureaucrat who drafted the reg. It seems to be a reaction to publicised incidents involving ocean going sea kayakers - presumably the relevant stakeholders were sea-kayaking clubs/hire outfits - not a handful of "extreme" yak fishos.





MrX said:


> Fishnfreak and Waterbaby are genuinely effected
> 
> ,





YakN00b said:


> Kelvin must be genuinely effected too


i go out that far every weekend and i certainly dont class myself or my freinds 'hard core' or extreme' we are just ordinary yak fisherman that go for a bit of a paddle and catch a snapper or two.

i think this bullshit law genuinely affects offshore yak fishers australiawide.

your not too worried about any of this are you mr x, but then again it dosent affect you does it :shock:


----------



## solatree

MrX said:


> that people regularly go out in kayaks more than 2nm offshore for a fish, and currently there are no rules or regs on safety gear required.


Not quite right.

In *Victoria* there are minimum safety equipment requirements for Kayaks used coastal offshore which is defined in Vic as greater than 2nm from the coast.

These are: 
PFD Type 1, 2 or 3 
Waterproof buoyant torch 
Bailer 
Spare paddle
2 Hand held orange smoke signals
2 Hand held red distress flares
Compass
Approved EPIRB

See http://www.marinesafety.vic.gov.au/Web1 ... ment#human

Might be a guide to what could be expected for approval in SA.

It also seems that in *Queensland and WA * all vessels (and I think that includes kayaks) used more than 2nm offshore, must carry an approved EPIRB. There are also other requirements like PFDs, flares, bailers, anchors etc. There may be exemptions for Kayaks but if there are, I can't find them.


----------



## MrX

Solatree, interesting point - I didn't realize in-shore yakkers were already so tightly regulated in other states. That Vic reg is pretty comprehensive. Have any of you Vic's been pinged for not carrying an EPIRB and a compass?

In NSW, the only safety requirement is a PFD when more than 400m from land. You can paddle to NZ if you like (some have), as long as you wear a PFD.

The site at Maritime Safety Queensland states:


> "While boats that do not require registration are not obliged to carry compulsory safety equipment, it is strongly recommended appropriate equipment is taken in the event of an emergency."


http://www.msq.qld.gov.au/Home/Safety/Safety_equipment_recreational_ships/

I couldn't find anything else, but presumably Queensland yakkers are aware of any regs compelling (rather than recommending) them to carry safety equipment?

Azzaroo, mate, don't take anything in my posts personally. If you and your buddies paddle out more than 2nm (3.8km) off the NSW coast every weekend to get the reds, you guys are pretty "hard-core/extreme" in my books. Good on you! I find people at launch questioning my sanity for going out a couple k's to get at them from the yak. (Then again, if I had to go that far out for a snap, I would).

Sure, we both live in unregulated NSW, so we are not directly personally affected by reg 35. My motivation for posting on this thread is an interest in kayak regs - and with the popularity of sea-kayaking, and inevitable incidents, they will come. The new SA reg is a strange one, but I question the benefit to those yak fishos who are genuinely affected (and I believe there is not many of them) in aggressively highlighting their activities to the authorities. It might backfire on them, and result in requirements like EPIRBS (at $700 a pop) and compasses, or blanket refusals by cranky inflexible bureaucrats. Or maybe it won't - it's complicated.

If someone decides to impose regs on us here in NSW, I favor the approach of cool heads like Occy & Spooled.


----------



## azzaroo

MrX said:


> If you and your buddies paddle out more than 2nm (3.8km) off the NSW coast every weekend to get the reds, you guys are pretty "hard-core/extreme" in my books. Good on you! I find people at launch questioning my sanity for going out a couple k's to get at them from the yak. (Then again, if I had to go that far out for a snap, I would).


 mr x ,dont worry i just get a bit hot under the coller with all these rules.. you see the reason we do paddle that far [4.5 km] is because our backyard is one big marine park from the beach to any sort of decent ground.lucky huh.


----------



## Alster99

HAWKEYE3 said:


> Does anyone know a constitutional lawyer?


Denis Denuto? Actually, no, don't get him...


----------



## MrX

That's a bummer Azzar. Where are you - Port Stephens/Great Lakes? Solitary Islands? Hope they don't shut us out of Longy.

Denis Denuto says the "vibe" is: paddle very fast between 2 and 3nm. For what it's worth, :



> "The legislative basis for planning and management of the land area of the coastal zone is primarily provided by the States. The Commonwealth and the States both have responsibilities in the offshore area. The States have been granted concurrent legislative power to the area within 3 nautical miles of the territorial sea baselines. The Commonwealth has primary responsibility from 3 nautical miles to 12 nautical miles in the territorial sea and beyond to the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone and the edge of the continental shelf."


----------



## water_baby

quick update, i went into the ministers office to meet one of his cronies. crony #1 was clearly not up to speed with the intricacies of the legislation, but to his credit managed to put me on to the ministerial liaison officer.

the MLO (crony #2) was marginally better, but was still not up with the questions i was asking, which admittedly were beyond his scope. MLO has offered to put my questions to the Dept's CEO's representatives. ill email him tomorrow with the questions and see how long it takes.

Of particular note was the overall "feel" of the situation we are faced with. each reugulation/act comes up for review every 10-14 years, and it was obviously recently time for the Harbours Act to be reviewed. they mentioned that the change was made to make sure the safety requirements for each particular activity on the water matches the risk involved.

eg - a mother ship kayaker would need less safety equipment and would be more loosely regulated than an individual, as the mother ship would carry the appropriate gear. similarly, a group of 5 kayakers would need the requisite safety gear between them, not for each of them. these are small concessions that are, at the end of the day, reasonable in my opinion, considering that they could have just as easily said "if you dont all have it, you dont all go". yes, this smacks of over regulation, but this is already upon us.

I also looked at Canoe SA, our local arm of the nationally recognised teaching and competition (and recreational) canoe/kayak/SOT organisation - Aust Canoeing. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the legislation matches the competency requirements of Australian Canoeing for coastal (SOT) and sea kayak skills that they teach/appraise. they will also have a representative from the Dept discussing the new laws and how they can gain exemption (ie exactly what we are wanting) so ill call them to see if we can bum a few seats when the presentation occurs. i foresee myself becoming a member at Canoe SA in the near future, which probably isnt a bad thing either for both my skills and for having someone inside the peak organisation in our state involved in fishing offshore.

ill let you know how i go with answers to my (and other peoples) questions, and for when the Canoe SA presentation occurs so we can get a few people there.


----------



## feelfree09

cheers waterbaby, i also spoke to someone in conlons office and they referred me to some one in the department of energy and infrastructure. the lady i spoke to mentioned that anyone could gain exemption, the basic idea is that they wanna know who is where and what is happening out on the water. she said that the exemptions only apply to a specific area (metro adelaide, spencer gulf, etc etc) apparently each area needs a writen exemption. i'vge gotta call back to get more info so will post as soon as i get more info


----------



## solatree

To everyone that made submissions - they were heard. As of the 1st of december 2010, the regulations in SA that prohibited kayaks going more than 2 nautical miles offshore have been changed. 

Kayakers in SA can now legally head more than 2 nautical miles offshore - but they must either must carry safety equipment such as EPIRB, flares, V-sheet, spare paddle, water, compass and maps or be part of a pod of at least 3 in which one kayak carries the listed safety gear - or close to a mother ship where the safety gear is carried.

The same leeway has not been granted to jet skis - they still cannot go m ore than 2 nautical miles offshore :twisted:

see reg 13 http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/R ... 226.UN.PDF

which used to say 
_
13-Certain vessels not to be operated in unprotected waters
(1) A person must not, without the approval of the CEO, operate
(a) a personal watercraft; or
(b) a canoe, kayak or other similar small human-powered vessel (other than a
rowboat),
in unprotected waters.
Maximum penalty: $1 250.
Expiation fee: $160._

but now says

13-Certain vessels not to be operated in unprotected waters
(1) A person must not, without the approval of the CEO, operate a personal watercraft in
unprotected waters.
Maximum penalty: $1 250.
Expiation fee: $160.


----------



## skorgard

solatree said:


> Kayakers in SA can now legally head more than 2 nautical miles offshore - but they must either must carry safety equipment such as EPIRB, flares, V-sheet, spare paddle, water, compass and maps or be part of a pod of at least 3 in which one kayak carries the listed safety gear - or close to a mother ship where the safety gear is carried.


Andrew I can see the bit about EPIRB which is a bit difficult as I was planning so get a PLB more appropriate for a kayak but in my understanding this is not compliant with the regs.

I cant see the bit about flares, etc - and what is a V-sheet? I wonder whether an iPhone with Navionics or a hand held GPS qualifies for compass and maps? Can you direct me to the right bit?


----------



## gibsoni

Great to hear some resolution on the issue. Well done everyone who voiced their concern.

I have no issue with the explained legislation except for the epirb. They are expensive and if one carries all the other safety gear off shore as we do, surely we are covered. I will admit an EPIRB is a nice thing to have none the less.

Iain.


----------



## Rose

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## RedPhoenix

Unfortunately, due to the change in ownership of this web site and the lack of response by the owners to my requests to remove my email address from all administrative-level notifications and functionality, I have decided to remove my posts on AKFF. Thank you for the great times, the fantastic learning experiences and the many many fish. If you are desperate for the old content of this particular post, it is available below base64 encoded and bzip2 compressed.

Red.

----

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


----------



## solatree

skorgard said:


> Andrew I can see the bit about EPIRB which is a bit difficult as I was planning so get a PLB more appropriate for a kayak but in my understanding this is not compliant with the regs.
> 
> I cant see the bit about flares, etc - and what is a V-sheet?


Paul - all questions are answered in the Harbors and Navigation Regulations 2009....provided you know where to look.

Definition of V-Sheet - Page 7 of regs (as per Reds description) 
_V distress sheet means a sheet of material-
(a) that is not less than 1.8 m by 1.2 m in size; and
(b) that is fluorescent orange-red in colour; and
(c) on which is displayed the letter V in black, the V being not less than 0.8 m in
height and the strokes forming the V being not less than 130 mm in breadth;_

Also unprotected waters

_unprotected waters means waters offshore of a line 2 nautical miles seaward of the
low water mark of a coast or of the banks of Lakes Alexandrina and Albert;_

EPIRB's are under section 164

_164-Emergency position indicating radio beacons (EPIRBs)
(1) For the purposes of section 65A(1) of the Act, the following classes of vessels are
specified:
(ab) canoes, kayaks, rowboats or other similar small human-powered recreational
vessels being operated in unprotected waters;
(1a) However, a canoe, kayak, rowboat or other similar small human-powered recreational
vessel being operated in unprotected waters is exempt from the requirement to carry
an EPIRB if-
(a) the vessel is in the company of-
(i) at least 2 similar vessels; or
(ii) a support vessel; and
(b) at least 1 of the other vessels referred to in paragraph (a) is equipped with an
EPIRB; and
(c) the vessel remains within 50 metres of the vessel so equipped at all times.
(2) For the purposes of section 65A(1) of the Act, the following requirements relating to
emergency position indicating radio beacons are specified:
(a) the beacon must be capable of transmitting on a frequency of 406 megahertz;
(b) the beacon must comply with AS/NZS 4280.1:2003: 406 MHz satellite
distress beacons - Marine emergency position-indicating radio beacons
(EPIRBs);
(c) the beacon must be currently registered with the Australian Maritime Safety
Authority;_

Safety requirements are in Schedule 9 - section 7 (2)

_7-Exemptions from requirement for appliances and equipment 
(2) Subject to subclause (2a), a canoe, kayak, rowboat or other similar small
human-powered recreational vessel may, instead of being equipped as required by
clause 6, be equipped with the following:
(a) if the vessel is being operated in protected or semi-protected waters-
(i) 1 PFD Type 1, PFD Type 2 or PFD Type 3 for each person carried
on the vessel;
(ii) unless the vessel is constructed of permanently enclosed pontoon
hulls, a bailer or other suitable device for removing water;
(iii) if the vessel is operated between the hours of sunset and sunrise-
1 torch or lantern;
(b) if the vessel is being operated in unprotected waters-
(i) 1 PFD Type 1 or PFD Type 2, with whistle attached, for each person
(ii) unless the vessel is constructed of permanently enclosed pontoon
hulls, a bailer or other suitable device for removing water;
(iii) if the vessel is operated between the hours of sunset and sunrise-
1 torch or lantern;
(iv) a spare paddle;
(v) a V distress sheet;
(vi) a tow line, at least 15 metres in length, of sufficient strength to allow
the vessel to be towed in any conditions;
(vii) 2 hand held red flares;
(viii) 2 hand held orange smoke signals;
(ix) 1 compass;
Note-
This requirement is not satisfied by GPS or satellite navigation
systems (or similar electronic devices)-see clause 8 of this
Schedule.
(x) 1 map or chart of the operational area;
(xi) 1 litre of fresh water.
(2a) A canoe, kayak, rowboat or other similar small human-powered recreational vessel
being operated in unprotected waters is exempt from a requirement to be equipped
with any or all of the equipment referred to in subclause (2)(b)(vii), (viii), (ix) or (x),
if-
(a) the canoe, kayak, rowboat or other vessel is in the company of-
(i) at least 2 similar vessels; or
(ii) a support vessel; and
(b) at least 1 of the other vessels referred to in paragraph (a) is equipped with all
of the equipment referred to in those subparagraphs; and
(c) the canoe, kayak, rowboat or other vessel remains within 50 metres of the
vessel so equipped at all times._

:shock: Takes a bit of hunting and reading . ;-)


----------



## mal.com

This legislation seems to exclude sail powered vessels, as it only applies to PWC's & human powered vessels

Quote:-
_Personal Watercraft (PWC)
Canoes, kayaks or other similar small human powered vessels (other than rowboats) Further information is available at Personal watercraft safety.
_

Get an AI & go anywhere

Mal


----------

