# Fishing Australia TV show



## emufingers (Aug 11, 2010)

The episode of FA shown in SA today showed two Hobie kayak fishermen not wearing a PFD and then a segment where a land based fishermen at a smelter was using a safety harness, hard hat and safety tether while fishing from the shore. Such inconsistency and blatant disregard for safety standards during recreational fishing does little to improve the standing of either the show or Hobie Australia.


----------



## solatree (May 30, 2008)

emufingers said:


> Such inconsistency and blatant disregard for safety standards during recreational fishing


To be fair to Rob Pax, he was abiding by the safety stds required at each site. Obviously Blue Scope Steel has very high requirements for Personal Protective Equipment for anybody within the Company's smelter grounds. On the other hand, in NSW, there is no legal requirement to wear a PDF on a kayak while fishing in an estuary like Pt Hacking. Nevertheless, it probably would be more responsible if he did wear one, given that laws on wearing PDFs do vary over Aust. For example the ABT requires all compeditors to wear a PDF1 during comps regardless of the State legal requirement.


----------



## Sunhobie (Jun 22, 2006)

emufingers said:


> The episode of FA shown in SA today showed two Hobie kayak fishermen not wearing a PFD and then a segment where a land based fishermen at a smelter was using a safety harness, hard hat and safety tether while fishing from the shore. Such inconsistency and blatant disregard for safety standards during recreational fishing does little to improve the standing of either the show or Hobie Australia.


Ahh....., the wonder of anonymous internet forums. Where else would someone pop up out of the blue with such an aggressive comment? If state legislation does not require a pfd, how could it a blatant disregard for safety standards, when they were in company, twenty metres from the shore?
I suggest that you get some cred before you point your emufingers!


----------



## eagle4031 (Jan 29, 2010)

i think emufingers has a valid point though. Even if not legislated it is important that we all lead by example. Emufingers was blunt, yes i agree. he has a real concern though. Governments legislate when we, the public, do not take care of ourselves. I do think the show was not focussed on the safety aspect, but this is unintentional and can easily happen. In the latter regard we should cut them some slack


----------



## kayakone (Dec 7, 2010)

Sunhobie said:


> emufingers said:
> 
> 
> > The episode of FA shown in SA today showed two Hobie kayak fishermen not wearing a PFD and then a segment where a land based fishermen at a smelter was using a safety harness, hard hat and safety tether while fishing from the shore. Such inconsistency and blatant disregard for safety standards during recreational fishing does little to improve the standing of either the show or Hobie Australia.
> ...


Bit like Anna Blight, wearing safety glasses and a construction helmet while talking in the open, with no overhead structures. Politically correct. But utter bullsh#t!


----------



## Sunhobie (Jun 22, 2006)

Oh, how i look forward to the day when i must wear a bright visibility vest when I step outside the safety of my secure compound. 
BTW, how can it still be legal to swim without a pfd?

Thank goodness that there are still places in this world where people can still make sensible decisions about their own safety.

Don't get me wrong.I advocate the use of PFDs. I also hope that most people can recognise the difference in level of risk involved, between a couple of mates stooging around in sheltered waters, only metres from shore and other truly dangerous situations.


----------



## Sunhobie (Jun 22, 2006)

kraley said:


> Sunhobie said:
> 
> 
> > emufingers said:
> ...


"laws of safety"??
I would suggest that it is possible to breach a safety guideline/recommendation, without breaking the law.


----------



## feelfree09 (May 5, 2009)

i think its BS to say hobie have done anything wrong regarding the segment in question. if the law says you dont require a pfd then if you feel confident in the situation you have chosen then thats entirely your decision and you should take responsibility if things go pearshaped. its like getting a speeding fine and trying to make the car manufacturer pay it. just because their product is capable of breaking the speed limit. there is a choice involved and people need to be responsible for themselves


----------



## emufingers (Aug 11, 2010)

Sunhobie said:


> emufingers said:
> 
> 
> > The episode of FA shown in SA today showed two Hobie kayak fishermen not wearing a PFD and then a segment where a land based fishermen at a smelter was using a safety harness, hard hat and safety tether while fishing from the shore. Such inconsistency and blatant disregard for safety standards during recreational fishing does little to improve the standing of either the show or Hobie Australia.
> ...


Pop out of the blue??? aggressive?? must have touched a raw nerve. Perhaps the aggression is yours

I am aware that in NSW the wearing of PFD's i kayaks within 100 metres of shore in non alpine areas is not required by law. However this show goes to all states, most of which require wearing a pfd while kayaking and therefore does not properly present safety laws in Australia. Good suggests that wearing a PFD even when it is not legislated is often wise. The modelling of good risk management by those who define themselves as leaders in a field is at the core of reducing dangerous incidents and drowning. I used the words "blatant disregard" because the producers are well aware of their audience and they did not undertake an adequate response to their duty of care to a national audience.

If the forum was not anonymous, you might find that the author has a 35 year professional background in risk analysis and management, national and international recognition for contribution to the development and implementation of safety interventions that minimise interference with desired activities. his work has included strategies for the reduction of drowning in Australia and internationally.


----------



## kayakone (Dec 7, 2010)

kraley said:


> kayakone said:
> 
> 
> > Bit like Anna Blight, wearing safety glasses and a construction helmet while talking in the open, with no overhead structures. Politically correct. But utter bullsh#t!
> ...





emufingers said:


> The episode of FA shown in SA today showed two Hobie kayak fishermen not wearing a PFD and then a segment where a land based fishermen at a smelter was using a safety harness, hard hat and safety tether while fishing from the shore. Such inconsistency and blatant disregard for safety standards during recreational fishing does little to improve the standing of either the show or Hobie Australia.


With all respect Kraley, would you wear a PFD if you were 20 metres from shore? I would if it was over 1.5 metres deep (or it was being filmed by TV crews).

"Explain to me how wearing a PFD is like that". There are at least two questions here. Show everyone you are responsible (reasonable), and show everyone you are obeying the law.

1. Is it reasonable (to wear a PFD)? In other words, identify the risks? What is the likelihood? What are the consequences? How serious? If they are 20 metres out and it is 3 metres deep, it might be reasonable to wear a PFD. However, if it is less than 1.5 metres deep? Why would you bother? I think this is called something like 'risk assessment'. In other words, you know there are car accidents daily, but you drove out your garage today. Don't we all do stuff assessing risks daily? 
2. Is it the law? In other words, Anna Blight may be obeying the law, but what an arse the law can be. And what a fool anyone is, for thinking she is wonderful for wearing safety goggles and a helmet, on an open site, with no possible risks, other than an alien attack. Not that they'd help then. Who is impressed by this politically correct behaviour? Politically correct, but in my view, a joke. A joke, except it's not funny.

I agree with emufingers...inconsistent!

Trevor


----------



## Cuda (Sep 18, 2006)

With regards to Emufingers' statement that most states requite a PFD tobe worn whilst kayaking.

This seems a bit of a general statement to me.For example, here in WA a PFD is not required to be worn under the recreational boating regulations when in protected waters - much like those Rob Pax and Jeff Fatt were fishing in during the TV show.

Sure, once you leave protected waters and enter waters where the risk of drowning increases then the controls to mitigate such risks increase - PFD, flares etc. Surely common sense should be considered and that is is reasonably practicable in the circumstances that a PFD is not "essential".


----------



## emufingers (Aug 11, 2010)

kayakone said:


> kraley said:
> 
> 
> > kayakone said:
> ...


In a workplace Anna Bligh , Rex P and all other people on site are required to follow the specific requirements of the occupational health and safety procedures decided by the company. Permitting individuals to decide whether they follow company policy can place the company at risk. What appears to be overkill is often the only way to deal with the nature of the risk and the ability of workers to perceive the risk and manage it. Companies have to try to protect high risk takers in order to limit their insurance premiums and workplace accident penalties. Less idiots less overkill required.

In terms of safety in estuaries or rivers, the average depth of the water is not the issue. There have been a number of drownings in rivers and estuaries in even shallower water than you 1.5 metres. Snags, thermoclines and powerful but invisibkle currents in small areas have all contributed to drowning of swimmers, kayakers and boaters. If the pracices demonstrated in the show were copied by users of the Murray river in SA, there would be a significantly increased risk of drowning. More drowning incidents leads to even more strict controls. Implementing and demonstrating reasonable logical safety practices will reduce the risk of draconian measures. You can be sure tht many of those that drowned were quite convinced that their activities were safe.


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

emufingers said:


> I used the words "blatant disregard" because the producers are well aware of their audience and they did not undertake an adequate response to their duty of care to a national audience.


With all due respect, your argument is so totally outrageous its laughable. You are effectively saying that due to a "risk" potential within the producers "duty of care", Australians shouldn't be allowed to watch a TV show where Dutch people smoke grass legally in Amsterdam because it "could" encourage a Queenslander to smoke some illegal weed in Queensland even though the presenter said, "Hi folks, I'm in Amsterdam".


----------



## emufingers (Aug 11, 2010)

spooled1 said:


> emufingers said:
> 
> 
> > I used the words "blatant disregard" because the producers are well aware of their audience and they did not undertake an adequate response to their duty of care to a national audience.
> ...


You draw a long bow. I have no interest in censorship and made no inference to it. I merely said that a show specifically produced for an Australian audience is required to take into consideration a duty of care to the national audeince it targets. This is nether outrageous nor laughable. No one suggested anything should be banned or blocked.
Your example is spurious.


----------



## eagle4031 (Jan 29, 2010)

emufingers said:


> If the pracices demonstrated in the show were copied by users of the Murray river in SA, there would be a significantly increased risk of drowning. More drowning incidents leads to even more strict controls. Implementing and demonstrating reasonable logical safety practices will reduce the risk of draconian measures. You can be sure tht many of those that drowned were quite convinced that their activities were safe.


+2


----------



## Cuda (Sep 18, 2006)

eagle4031 said:


> emufingers said:
> 
> 
> > If the pracices demonstrated in the show were copied by users of the Murray river in SA, there would be a significantly increased risk of drowning. More drowning incidents leads to even more strict controls. Implementing and demonstrating reasonable logical safety practices will reduce the risk of draconian measures. You can be sure tht many of those that drowned were quite convinced that their activities were safe.
> ...


So are we suggesting that any person on or in the water should be wearing PFD's to stop them from drowning??? Where does it end??? Total elimination of risk by introducing laws that eliminate any water activity that could lead to drowning?? 
We are well and truly a nanny state if that eventuates.


----------



## eagle4031 (Jan 29, 2010)

no - what it is saying is - if we are sensible and wear pfds no laws (draconian measures) will be required. in other words - no nanny state


----------



## emufingers (Aug 11, 2010)

Cuda said:


> eagle4031 said:
> 
> 
> > emufingers said:
> ...


No we are not . We are not talking about your right to take risks and possibly pay the penalty due to your state law. We are talking about whether a TV show that is screened nationally has a responsibility not to model behaviour that is illegal in several states and which carries demonstrable increased risks of drowning in similar circumstances likely to be encountered by viewers.

The debate about the nanny state has been had in other threads ad nauseum. It is polarised and will remain so. This is about the responsibility of a public broadcaster to have a duty of care for its viewers across its whole target audience by modelling good safety practice.


----------



## paffoh (Aug 24, 2006)

I think the main issue you have Jerry has been clarified well in your last post. The fact that laws differ from state to state is of little consequence if no laws are being broken. perhaps the choice could have been clarified on air to avoid confusion, perhaps by disclaimer at the shows end?

It's up to the individuals participating in any given water sport to judge their own ability whilst adhering to pfd laws, I'm sure they gave him the option but Jeffs choice was slightly perplexing though...given his very serious recent health scare.


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

Let me shorten the bow. In some areas of the NT you can drive mega fast. Let's say Top Gear put the pedal to the metal in one episode and say, "Here in the Northern Territory you can drive real fast.... Yeeeehaaaaw".

A few days later a yak fisher from Canberra gets caught speeding and says to the judge, "Top Gear made me do it". The judge then looks at him and says, "Stop wasting my time you pontificating fool from the Hub. As a driver you have the ultimate responsibility to understand the road rules wherever you happen to drive. It is not Top Gears role to inform you of the road rules. They are entertainers who were driving legally both in the place and at the time they created that TV episode for your entertainment".

The plaintiff then says, "This isn't about breaking the law. Apparently this should be an OH&S issue related to risk. He then says, "I demand the producers maintain a duty of care to the people of Australia. I demand our insurance premiums rise tenfold as a result of unknown risk, I demand we create new laws to stop speeding and I demand the Government force TV shows to create disclaimers that say,"In the Northern Territory, you can drive real fast"


----------



## bunsen (Jan 2, 2009)

eagle4031 said:


> no - what it is saying is - if we are sensible and wear pfds no laws (draconian measures) will be required. in other words - no nanny state


Or it could just draw more unwanted attention to the fact that we participate in something that is inherently risky, and in the eyes of regulators, obviously in need of more controls.
When my friends who have never been kayaking or fishing see photos of me offshore and fishing, even wearing and carrying all safety gear, they still call me crazy. The usual comment is something along the lines of being sharkbait. 
Next we will start saying that it should be required to carry a sharkshield unless in a freshwater lake, even if it isnt the law. You can see where this is heading.


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

Im not against wearing pfds whether required to or not, but what I hate is know alls who know very little trying to tell me what I should be doing for my own safety. Im never wearing a pfd again because they are dangerous, giving the wearer a false sense of security and preventing the wearer from swimming properly.
And for those who watch a fishing show and choose demonstrate their vast knowledge of how they can tell someone how dangerous and irresponsible they are should perhaps chill out and go for a paddle and see what its really about and you might realize its not that bad after all.


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

Breambo said:


> Im never wearing a pfd again because they are dangerous, giving the wearer a false sense of security and preventing the wearer from swimming properly.


Hell yeah... Exactly... When Joe Tripodi and Eric Roozendaal called the public to make submissions on the NSW lifejacket reforms, my submission requested they NOT legislate for the mandatory wearing of PFD's within the surf zone. This is because some days I find it safer on my kayak, NOT to wear a PFD in certain surf conditions.

Somewhere along the line a Macquarie Street risk assessor probably disagreed with my submission and now I'm forced to wear a PFD even if I personally believe it might not be in my personal best interest on a particular day.


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

I have many real life examples where only a fool would wear a pdf. Like the last time I nearly got washed on the rocks I had to quickly take my pdf off !!!! or be smashed onto barnicle encrusted rocks. As soon as the pdf came off I was easily able to go under the wash and swim my kayak away with the backwash and save the day.


----------



## Sunhobie (Jun 22, 2006)

emufingers said:


> Pop out of the blue??? aggressive?? must have touched a raw nerve.


You betcha! I am growing tired of the do-gooders who are making an industry out of protecting us from ourselves. I totally disagree with those who seek to remove the freedom to take acceptable, calculated risk. I do believe, that we as law abiding citizens, can pay the price when lunatics do stupit sh*t and come undone. Incidents of foolhardy recklessness, that lead to disaster, can draw unwanted attention of legislators. As I have said, some footage of Pax fluffing around with "Wake up Jeff" in the shallows of Port Hacking, without a PFD, in close proximity to a camera boat, obeying local laws, hardly constitutes a blatant disregard for common sense and safety.

I enjoyed watching the show yesterday. To me it was interesting entertainment. (More so than many fishing shows that revolve around catching the same fish 20 times.) I loved the hard hat, safety glasses, gloves,retractable man leash. I wouldn't be surprised if Pax insisted on wearing all that gear for a gag. I do concede, that a statement about the wisdom of wearing PFDs when conditions dictate, wouldn't have gone astray.

If the "Safety Nazis" get their way, boating as we know it, will be banned.


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

You make valid points kraley as always. I know I have wandered off topic to an anti pdf stance but this seems to be such a point of irritation that the do gooder crusader brigade always bring up, if you dont wear one you are somehow irresponsible and bad for the sport.
Well I'd like to know how many on this forum have actually been saved by their pdf, not just Im glad I had it on, but actually saved their life, the answer is NONE.


----------



## kayakone (Dec 7, 2010)

Breambo said:


> You make valid points kraley as always. I know I have wandered off topic to an anti pdf stance but this seems to be such a point of irritation that the do gooder crusader brigade always bring up, if you dont wear one you are somehow irresponsible and bad for the sport.
> Well I'd like to know how many on this forum have actually been saved by their pdf, not just Im glad I had it on, but actually saved their life, the answer is NONE.


Correction: ONE

Big surf at Moffat Beach (Sunshine Coast) in a whitewater plastic. Got smashed on a drop, imploding the skirt and partly ripped out of the cockpit, tearing soft tissue in knees. Almost unconscious from pain, I was glad I had a PFD. Would have drowned without it. If you're hurt, you need every bit of flotation (not talking about those surf/rock zone encounters previously mentioned).

Trevor


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

kayakone said:


> Breambo said:
> 
> 
> > You make valid points kraley as always. I know I have wandered off topic to an anti pdf stance but this seems to be such a point of irritation that the do gooder crusader brigade always bring up, if you dont wear one you are somehow irresponsible and bad for the sport.
> ...


Ok if you are the type to take a skirted sik in big surf maybe a pdf may be of assistance. Firstly its one of the worst choices of surfcraft for big surf you could make and maybe the pdf was what caused you be to blown out. At any rate you may or may not have drowned with out one. Not convincing enough for me Im sorry.( Although I dont doubt you were seriously glad to have one on.)
BTW I have dislocated my knee surfing huge and dangerous waves, no pdf, and while it wasnt easy never felt like drowning. Also been in rescues with broken legs , arms, gashes etc etc in big surf and never witnessed a drowning except of those who were incompetent to start with. Some more examples please.


----------



## Sunhobie (Jun 22, 2006)

I am amazed that surfing is still legal. :twisted:


----------



## Alster99 (Nov 20, 2008)

kayakone said:


> I was glad I had a PFD. Would have drowned without it.





Breambo said:


> Not convincing enough for me Im sorry.( Although I dont doubt you were seriously glad to have one on.)


Not a good enough answer?! "Would have drowned without it" is not a strong enough endorsement for wearing a pfd? (or just not the answer you wanted to hear?) I'm lost. :shock:

In Vic we have to wear PFD's. It doesn't bother me one bit. The inflatable types really quite unobtrusive and provide that extra element of safety if required. They don't need to be inflated but are there just in case you do need it. I think it's just sensible to wear one and I would prefer to wear one in any state I was fishing in (law or not).


----------



## Alster99 (Nov 20, 2008)

Sorry, gone a bit off-topic.


----------



## eagle4031 (Jan 29, 2010)

bunsen said:


> eagle4031 said:
> 
> 
> > no - what it is saying is - if we are sensible and wear pfds no laws (draconian measures) will be required. in other words - no nanny state
> ...


yes -- maybe then instead of laws we could have recommendations - for example, "if you kayak/canoe in these areas it is recommended that you wear a PFD"
then we have choice.
i guess the problem occurs when a kayaker drowns or has to be rescued and the coroner then recommends an appropriate law. Then laws get built upon laws etc etc
At the end of the day, we all take risks and some of these may or may not result in our demise. Such is life. That is what makes life such a joyous adventure. The unknown, the risk, is what makes life exciting. Those that never take risks never live.


----------



## kayakone (Dec 7, 2010)

eagle4031 said:


> bunsen said:
> 
> 
> > eagle4031 said:
> ...


Agreed. But why do I have so many NDE's* getting the excitement?

Might take up lawn bowls.

Trevor
* near death experiences


----------



## eagle4031 (Jan 29, 2010)

kayakone said:


> Agreed. But why do I have so many NDE's* getting the excitement?
> 
> Might take up lawn bowls.
> 
> ...


 yeah - but at least you know your alive - i doubt whether lawn bowls will result in a NDE :?


----------



## koich (Jul 25, 2007)

Hobie only make one pfd and it's more than likely that Rob and his mate didn't want to look like council workers on national tv.


----------



## grinner (May 15, 2008)

eric,

boo!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

now off to bunnings and get some locks (ha, its sunday nite , too late).

i wont cause any trouble but can i point out how we could spend maybe $100,000 on kayak safety.

solution 1

employ some government clerks who cant spell kayak, and dont know that water is wet, to sit around and write some draft guidelines and receive submissions and go on fact finding missions and sit around in committee meetings and get a lecture from the risk management lawyer and produce some sort of rules and bury em deep in the maritine safety act and tell the water safety police to check on compliance. probably the average kayaker will get checked, oh maybe once every 10 yrs.

or solution 2

take that $100.000 and give it to red and sunhobie and spooled and yakass and whatever kayak dealer sells kayaks(and wants to get involved) and tell him that when the customer walks out the door with a new kayak they can now go to a free lesson on "getting aquainted with your kayak" and rock out to coochimudloo and see red or whoever and pay these blokes a bit to take a class the first saturday of every month and teach things like "how to put a pfd on" people in boats have NO idea with the old brick ones .

i gaurantee , that using the available community of kayakers to pass on safety tips is a much cheaper and better way to go than worrying about some sort of pfd legislation.

however as option 1 gives the gubment control and option 2 gives the community control, i know which option we will eventually face.

now back to the simpsons.


----------



## shabby (Mar 24, 2011)

eagle4031 said:


> kayakone said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed. But why do I have so many NDE's* getting the excitement?
> ...


I don't know eagle, I was playing in a lawn bowls comp not long ago went down on the one knee and BAM! there goes the back and couldn't get up....my kayaking life flashed before my eyes.


----------



## Squidder (Sep 2, 2005)

Breambo said:


> Ok if you are the type to take a skirted sik in big surf maybe a pdf may be of assistance. Firstly its one of the worst choices of surfcraft for big surf you could make and maybe the pdf was what caused you be to blown out. At any rate you may or may not have drowned with out one. Not convincing enough for me Im sorry.( Although I dont doubt you were seriously glad to have one on.)
> BTW I have dislocated my knee surfing huge and dangerous waves, no pdf, and while it wasnt easy never felt like drowning. Also been in rescues with broken legs , arms, gashes etc etc in big surf and never witnessed a drowning except of those who were incompetent to start with. Some more examples please.


With the utmost respect, I think that if you are trying to argue that PFDs do not save lives, or are not a smart thing to wear when kayaking, you are fighting an uphill battle. If you don't think it's a good idea, don't wear one, but I have a problem with you arguing aginst the logic of wearing one, and possibly giving newcomers to the sport the idea that you don't need to wear one. If Rob Pax didn't wear one on TV then he is an idiot and should have known better.

In 2009 a kayaker drowned on Lake Burley Griffin here in Canberra, he was a personal trainer and very fit, and apparently had a football stuffed up his jumper in lieu of a PFD. The weather went to shit, he became separated from his kayak and drowned. It is very likely in this case that a PFD would have saved his life. If nothing else, it would have made the recovery of his remains a lot swifter than the 8 days of police diving it eventually took. Forum discussion here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30913


----------



## scorpio (Dec 15, 2009)

I bet Rob did'nt expect to get torn apart by a bunch of Blokes!!!! with not much better to do with their time than pick him and his mate to pieces for not wearing a pfd, boooo hoooo!!!!. Get real. I think he may have had a Boogie hanging from his nose too. What a bad example he is making for up and coming kayakas. Ha. Not a mention of the great fishing. Thanks Rob for giving us something to watch on the Idiot box, enjoy your show. Take me, Take me!!!!


----------



## scorpio (Dec 15, 2009)

Great Idea of yours Grinner, but it won't work because it makes too much sense. I made the same suggestion about including the cost of an advanced riding course for returning riders in the cost of a bike but it went nowhere. I thing the government heads really don't give a shit about your life or mine unless it will directly affect them.


----------



## Squidder (Sep 2, 2005)

scorpio said:


> I bet Rob did'nt expect to get torn apart by a bunch of Blokes!!!! with not much better to do with their time than pick him and his mate to pieces for not wearing a pfd, boooo hoooo!!!!. Get real. I think he may have had a Boogie hanging from his nose too. What a bad example he is making for up and coming kayakas. Ha. Not a mention of the great fishing. Thanks Rob for giving us something to watch on the Idiot box, enjoy your show. Take me, Take me!!!!


Scorpio - in many states it is law to wear a PFD while kayaking. The issue (which you seem to have missed mate) is our sport is inherently risky, and wearing a PFD decreases the risk. Do you wear a seatbelt while driving?


----------



## nubs (Apr 26, 2011)

Squidder said:


> scorpio said:
> 
> 
> > I bet Rob did'nt expect to get torn apart by a bunch of Blokes!!!! with not much better to do with their time than pick him and his mate to pieces for not wearing a pfd, boooo hoooo!!!!. Get real. I think he may have had a Boogie hanging from his nose too. What a bad example he is making for up and coming kayakas. Ha. Not a mention of the great fishing. Thanks Rob for giving us something to watch on the Idiot box, enjoy your show. Take me, Take me!!!!
> ...


Sorry Squidder, I assumed that Emu was complaining about the fact that Rob wasn't wearing a PFD (which he is legally entitled to do) and that was a bad example because in other states they are law and people might scratch their heads in confusion, then without any forethought go out and buy a yak, not put a PFD on and mysteriously drown all because Rob wasn't wearing one. I haven't seen the episode so don't know if there was any disclaimers thrown up about checking your local laws and the rest of it, but at the end of the day he has done nothing wrong. Someone earlier had a great example of driving in the NT. Surely there is an onus on the operator to find out the laws. I'm not about to watch a Top Gear when they are driving in Germany on the Autobahn and say to myself " hey when I get there I can tear it up because I saw it on TV once".

Maybe, possibly, they should be showing us the safety aspect on telly but then again not all footballers wear headgear and it's because they don't have to.


----------



## grinner (May 15, 2008)

as a side question.

i know paulo does a lot of rowing and my 2 daughters both rowed at school.
dropping them off at 5 am in the dark to head out into the brisbane river(which flows at a fair old rate). no concept whatsoever of a pfd. (fair enough , i dont think you could row with one on)
catch a crab in an 8 and you are immediately flung out of the boat (this being the term for putting the oar in the water incorrectly.
3 years ago a girls 8 hit a city cat ferry(or vice versa) in the fog and 2 girls were hospitalized. all ended up in the drink
again no call for pfd's.

i know of 2 people who have just fallen out of the back of boats in moreton bay and a yachtie who fell over board and watched his yacht sail off.

indeed for akff members with kids and boats , always have a pfd on them as a kid can so easily go over the side and you hear nothing.

anyway, i still think its better to learn how to swim then rely on a pfd (not saying you shouldnt wear one but think its a common sense issue) that and go with a friendsafety in numbers. especially us old blokes who could get an angina attack and need to be towed back in.for the cost of a pfd, you will probably soon be able to buy a small personal epirb and that should see you picked up real quick. think they may become the safety item of the future.


----------



## paulsod (Dec 28, 2008)

I seen some people who came close to the subject. but what about those idiots who can't swim and still go out on Kayaks.
Don't tell me that doesn't happen. They can be 2 metres off the land in 2 metres of water and panic and drown.
A person who can't not swim won't normally wade out far in water but get them on some floating object and they lose part of their fear.
I seen enough idiots on the road, jet ski's and boats. So to try and make out it doesn't happen on kayaks is only fooling the fool.
Cheers
Paul


----------



## Alster99 (Nov 20, 2008)

All the more reason for pfd's.


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

Emufingers has gone particularly quiet. Perhaps his risk assessment of this post determined that topics like PFD's aren't as really black and white as they may first seem.


----------



## koich (Jul 25, 2007)

If PFD stands for Pretty Funny Dildo, then yes, Rob should wear one.


----------



## koich (Jul 25, 2007)

For people who have a cerebral cortex that is underdeveloped either due to youth or some other trauma, ken is saying that you are a dumbshit.


----------



## scoman (Oct 4, 2010)

koich said:


> For people who have a cerebral cortex that is underdeveloped either due to youth or some other trauma, ken is saying that you are a dumbshit.


Wise words indeed. However usualy spoken by those who lack the spine or physical prowess to play football. :shock: :shock:

Did I really say that?


----------



## grinner (May 15, 2008)

re football,

again correct tackling technique is probably more important then headgear (again, not saying its not a good idea).
if you watch dallas johnson from the melbourne storm he still puts his head in front of the attacking player and has been knocked out countless times. if you watched an ET or wayne pearce you'd see they never got the same degree of trauma due to better technique.quite intersted that some players still play without a mouthgaurd as they think it impedes airflow, that is bizarre.

afl is a different kettle with a more chaotic collision.

scans on leading soccer players have shown brain atrophy from heading the ball. this may explain a little of david beckhams behaviour.

american gridiron is just an enormous collision sport and they seem to safety gear up.

i dont know what the stats are for rock fishing but i believe it is one of the most deadly participant sports in OZ and a pfd would be a good idea for those fellas, as well as mandatory dunlop volleys.

re lawn bowls, again multiple deaths occur on the bowling green but this has more to do with the general state of health of the players.


----------



## emufingers (Aug 11, 2010)

spooled1 said:


> Emufingers has gone particularly quiet. Perhaps his risk assessment of this post determined that topics like PFD's aren't as really black and white as they may first seem.


You wish. I have just been watching people get off topic in line with their particular prejudices.

We could try something interesting. Perhaps each kayaker could post the longest distance they have swum in the last 12 months, how far they can swim in ten minutes in calm water wearing the clothes that they wear while kayaking in winter, and circumstances under which they would kayak without wearing a pfd.

mine is 400 metres, I don't know, I always wear a pfd


----------



## koich (Jul 25, 2007)

emufingers said:


> spooled1 said:
> 
> 
> > Emufingers has gone particularly quiet. Perhaps his risk assessment of this post determined that topics like PFD's aren't as really black and white as they may first seem.
> ...


500m, don't kayak in winter, enclosed waters with no boat traffic I don't wear a PFD.


----------



## TheMassive (Nov 23, 2009)

patwah said:


> 500 meters, have retired from Kayak fishing, when im sitting in my yak late at night smoking crack


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

emufingers said:


> I have just been watching people get off topic in line with their particular prejudices.


I've been watching Masterchef and now I'm watching Media Watch.


----------



## cheaterparts (Jul 3, 2010)

emufingers said:


> We could try something interesting. Perhaps each kayaker could post the longest distance they have swum in the last 12 months, how far they can swim in ten minutes in calm water wearing the clothes that they wear while kayaking in winter, and circumstances under which they would kayak without wearing a pfd.


first I wear a PDF - its in the VIC regs that you must wear one in all waters while on a kayak/canoe 
however I would wear one anyway -

how far could I swim in carm water I dont know ,I dont fish in any carm water as most places I fish have strong tide flows
I fact I dout if I fell out of my yak and it was at anchour and I got more that 10 meters away I could get back to it a lot of the time
I would be surprised if 5% of the members on here could - with or without a PDF
could I reach land yes I beleve so in time - most of the time I'm not that far from shore and channels with fast moving water do get close to land
ie queen birthday W/E I was trying to fish about 100 meters off the french Island shore in 40 meters depth ( not enough anchour rope made it to hard ) however there was no wind and just drifing with the tide my GPS clocked the speed at 5.8 kph 
by NSW regs I wouldn't need a PDF to fish along there being inside 100 meters from shore and being inclosed waters

as I said I wear a PDF not only as its the rules here in Vic - its a basic saftey thing that i hope not to need 
as for the fishing show with the hobie guys not wearing PDFs although they were playing by the rules it would have looked better if they had put them on


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

First up someone said I was trying to promote not using pfd, thats not true.
I am very safety conscience and especially on the lookout for my mates.
The points I have been trying to make that they are not suitable in ALL situations. Clearly, and I would hope that even a novice would realize that someone who cant swim, or would kayak in clothes would at least have the common sense to wear one.( I cant believe that members wear clothes kayaking Hahahah).
Im still surprised of the lack of responses of members who have actually relied on one.


----------



## koich (Jul 25, 2007)

I was trying to find teh thread from the bloke who got run over in kayak by the cruiser in Sydney I think it was. I'm not sure if he had on or not.


----------



## paulsod (Dec 28, 2008)

koich said:


> For people who have a cerebral cortex that is underdeveloped either due to youth or some other trauma, ken is saying that you are a dumbshit.


 Luv it. :lol: :lol: 
I have read that before about Professional Footballers and in a way it happens to car accident victims, with the sudden de-acceleration the brain hits the skull.
Of course it all depends on the speed at the time of the accident.
Which might explain why I ......um...forget.....ah ...things. :lol: 
cheers
Paul


----------



## Wrassemagnet (Oct 17, 2007)

I am too chicken to go out for a fish without my pfd but my kids and I have mucked around in shallow calm water where one would feel safe swimming without one on. When I was a kid I never had a bike helmet but now we always use one. Life in general is complicated and things change. I've always thought a Pfd essential for yak fishing though.


----------



## kayakone (Dec 7, 2010)

Breambo said:


> First up someone said I was trying to promote not using pfd, that's not true.
> I am very safety conscious and especially on the lookout for my mates.
> The points I have been trying to make that . Clearly, and I would hope that even a novice would realize that someone who can't swim, or would kayak in clothes would at least have the common sense to wear one.(I cant believe that members wear clothes kayaking Hahahah).
> I'm still surprised of the lack of responses of members who have actually relied on one.


That's because most yakkers never fall off their yaks. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:



eric said:


> Breambo said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still surprised of the lack of responses of members who have actually relied on one.
> ...


 

Yes Eric. The sea floor is littered with them, searching for Davey Jones to chat to him about what happened  . Unless the sharks ate them. It doesn't have to be deep, as some have previously mentioned in this post, including Breambo, you can drown in a foot of water (if you're injured, unconscious). Until it happens, you can't believe how important it is to float high, and breathe sweet air   .



emufingers said:


> spooled1 said:
> 
> 
> > Emufingers has gone particularly quiet. Perhaps his risk assessment of this post determined that topics like PFD's aren't as really black and white as they may first seem.
> ...


Go on, try it. I used to be able to swim 3 kms without stopping....in speedos. You try in clothes and I think you'll be surprised. Also Breambo, and no offense intented, I would love to hear from you why "they are not suitable in ALL situations". Is it because they are difficult to swim in, or because you hate superfluous legislation, and wish to assess and manage your own risks (fun isn't it)? Can you not get into serious trouble anywhere, anytime? At the same time (no TV crews), if I too, were mucking about in a yak, with others around, and in water only a metre deep, I might not put one on. Risk assessment? Or foolish?

Emufingers challenge: 12 months - 300 metres (fell out of a SIK and failed re-entry); guessing 100 metres; none.

Oh what a lively, divisive topic. Cheers all

Trevor


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

Here's my question: Does Emufingers believe the producers of fishing broadcasts have a responsibility to inform viewers about specific PFD requirements in each state and territory? YES or NO


----------



## fisher (Aug 30, 2005)

There are some real anomalies in the use of PFD's though. I have a wave ski, which is essentially is the same as a sit on kayak. Many years ago I was paddling my wave ski at in the calm waters of Pt Vincent without a PFD, and the Marine and Harbours fella came over and told me I needed to have a PFD, and I had to return to shore. The thing is, if I was in a 3 metre surf there would not have been the same expectation - yet clearly the surf area is far more dangerous. I agree that kayakers should wear PFD's, but I don't get particularly uptight if they dont - they apply their own risk assessment.


----------



## cheaterparts (Jul 3, 2010)

fisher said:


> There are some real anomalies in the use of PFD's though. I have a wave ski, which is essentially is the same as a sit on kayak. Many years ago I was paddling my wave ski at in the calm waters of Pt Vincent without a PFD, and the Marine and Harbours fella came over and told me I needed to have a PFD, and I had to return to shore. The thing is, if I was in a 3 metre surf there would not have been the same expectation - yet clearly the surf area is far more dangerous. I agree that kayakers should wear PFD's, but I don't get particularly uptight if they dont - they apply their own risk assessment.


I wonder if it is legal in Vic to paddle a surf ski or surf kayak in the surf zone with out a PBF as the reg reads

"The minimum safety equipment requirements for human powered vessels, including canoes, kayaks, rafts and rowing boats, is as follows: "

I would have thought a surf ski was human powered


----------



## blueyak (Jan 20, 2009)

I love the whole wearing a pfd is the same as wearing a seatbelt debate.

Personally i think if Rob Pax needed a pfd a few feet from shore in the beautiful calm waters of port hacking then you should be wearing a 5 point safety harness, racing helmet and have roll bars set up in your car to do the sunday grocery shopping.


----------



## Junglefisher (Jun 2, 2008)

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!


----------



## Junglefisher (Jun 2, 2008)

eric said:


> Junglefisher said:
> 
> 
> > Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!
> ...


Nah. That's dreamworld. Stuff like that doesn't happen at the zoo. Interesting to see what some of the people here dream about eh?


----------



## bunsen (Jan 2, 2009)

haha, I cant wait until summer when we all have actual fishing trips to talk about again, instead of arguing over moot points! 
;-)


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

Has anyone seen the brand new Range Rover TV commercial with with the subtitle, "vehicle driven in overseas conditions"?


----------



## Macbrand (Feb 15, 2010)

I wear a PFD because i'm paranoid about being knocked over by a jet ski or drunk boat driver and my wife likes me to wear it (not that a PFD would do much).

But i'm not sure that my opinion of why a PFD should be worn means that everyone else should have the same concerns. It should be upto the individual.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2011)

Remember this next time you feel like watching TV: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...-life-span-by-22-mins/articleshow/9620567.cms
:lol:


----------



## kayakone (Dec 7, 2010)

WOW!

Two years less fishing. Now that's serious. I'm cutting the plug off mine.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2011)

kayakone said:


> WOW! Two years less fishing. Now that's serious. I'm cutting the plug off mine.


It's not just the time, it's the money! ;-) Think of all the unnecessary stuff you won't buy as a direct result of not being exposed to TV commercials...
Five years ago, I brought up the idea of getting rid of our TV, and the wife & kids were appalled... but we did it nevertheless, and soon after, everyone forgot about watching TV, and no one seems to miss it a bit  News and entertainment? - There's plenty on the web (e.g. akff), and as for movies (another waste of time, IMHO) , you can rent them.


----------



## shabby (Mar 24, 2011)

Doesn't renting movies make the saving money point kind of pointless?....Ahh I couldn't care less, I wish we could get rid of our bloody TV nice move melafefon2!


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2011)

shabby said:


> Doesn't renting movies make the saving money point kind of pointless?....Ahh I couldn't care less, I wish we could get rid of our bloody TV nice move melafefon2!


The movies are not for me, it's the wife & kids who rent and watch this stuff. I guess one has to let some of that Hollywood rubbish into the house, or the kids would grow up thinking they've been deprived of something :shock: 
The good news is that the kids seem less interested in this now than they were a few years ago, so there may still be hope for the future


----------



## kayakone (Dec 7, 2010)

melafefon2 said:


> kayakone said:
> 
> 
> > WOW! Two years less fishing. Now that's serious. I'm cutting the plug off mine.
> ...


Is this warning from decades ago relevant?

TELEVISION

The most important thing we've learned, 
So far as children are concerned, 
Is never, NEVER, NEVER let 
Them near your television set -- 
Or better still, just don't install 
The idiotic thing at all. 
In almost every house we've been, 
We've watched them gaping at the screen. 
They loll and slop and lounge about, 
And stare until their eyes pop out. 
(Last week in someone's place we saw 
A dozen eyeballs on the floor.) 
They sit and stare and stare and sit 
Until they're hypnotised by it, 
Until they're absolutely drunk 
With all that shocking ghastly junk. 
Oh yes, we know it keeps them still, 
They don't climb out the window sill, 
They never fight or kick or punch, 
They leave you free to cook the lunch 
And wash the dishes in the sink -- 
But did you ever stop to think, 
To wonder just exactly what 
This does to your beloved tot? 
IT ROTS THE SENSE IN THE HEAD! 
IT KILLS IMAGINATION DEAD! 
IT CLOGS AND CLUTTERS UP THE MIND! 
IT MAKES A CHILD SO DULL AND BLIND 
HE CAN NO LONGER UNDERSTAND 
A FANTASY, A FAIRYLAND! 
HIS BRAIN BECOMES AS SOFT AS CHEESE! 
HIS POWERS OF THINKING RUST AND FREEZE! 
HE CANNOT THINK -- HE ONLY SEES! 
'All right!' you'll cry. 'All right!' you'll say, 
'But if we take the set away, 
What shall we do to entertain 
Our darling children? Please explain!' 
We'll answer this by asking you, 
'What used the darling ones to do? 
'How used they keep themselves contented 
Before this monster was invented?' 
Have you forgotten? Don't you know? 
We'll say it very loud and slow: 
THEY ... USED ... TO ... READ! They'd READ and READ, 
AND READ and READ, and then proceed 
To READ some more. Great Scott! Gadzooks! 
One half their lives was reading books! 
The nursery shelves held books galore! 
Books cluttered up the nursery floor! 
And in the bedroom, by the bed, 
More books were waiting to be read! 
Such wondrous, fine, fantastic tales 
Of dragons, gypsies, queens, and whales 
And treasure isles, and distant shores 
Where smugglers rowed with muffled oars, 
And pirates wearing purple pants, 
And sailing ships and elephants, 
And cannibals crouching 'round the pot, 
Stirring away at something hot. 
(It smells so good, what can it be? 
Good gracious, it's Penelope.) 
The younger ones had Beatrix Potter 
With Mr. Tod, the dirty rotter, 
And Squirrel Nutkin, Pigling Bland, 
And Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle and- 
Just How The Camel Got His Hump, 
And How the Monkey Lost His Rump, 
And Mr. Toad, and bless my soul, 
There's Mr. Rate and Mr. Mole- 
Oh, books, what books they used to know, 
Those children living long ago! 
So please, oh please, we beg, we pray, 
Go throw your TV set away, 
And in its place you can install 
A lovely bookshelf on the wall. 
Then fill the shelves with lots of books, 
Ignoring all the dirty looks, 
The screams and yells, the bites and kicks, 
And children hitting you with sticks- 
Fear not, because we promise you 
That, in about a week or two 
Of having nothing else to do, 
They'll now begin to feel the need 
Of having something to read. 
And once they start -- oh boy, oh boy! 
You watch the slowly growing joy 
That fills their hearts. They'll grow so keen 
They'll wonder what they'd ever seen 
In that ridiculous machine, 
That nauseating, foul, unclean, 
Repulsive television screen! 
And later, each and every kid 
Will love you more for what you did.

Roald Dahl

Several friends with families have done this. No TV? What do they do, you ask? They read, they talk to each other. That is looking at the family member and talking to them, not texting, not speaking while glued to the set. 
They help each other to learn, to do projects. Children explore and play. They play outside, and get dirty. They laugh a lot, toning young bodies with climbing trees, wrestling, running, rolling and jumping. They take risks, and learn consequences....there are NO risks watching TV (apart from those to mental and physical health). They also learn to play inside, expression, music, and puzzles and mind games. I still remember great times of singing around a piano (neighbours had one). I remember playing cowboys & indians for hours, and all we had for guns was 2 pieces of wood glued together. Wouldn't have frightened a bank teller, but for us it was real. We got 'lost' in the local creek, throwing stones, swimming, climbing cliffs and fishing.

As Dahl says, their minds are stimulated with imaginations of strange, unseen places, places of intrigue and mystery, dark places, hidie holes, sights and senses. A world of special places and fertile minds. And healthy kids, and families that relate. Try it...

"And later, each and every kid 
Will love you more for what you did."

Cheers Trevor


----------



## Junglefisher (Jun 2, 2008)

We went without TV for several years a while back and don't bother to set up the TV in the caravan (we've been travelling a year now). You'd be surprised how little you miss it. I do like being able to watch sporting events though. On a side note, a family pulled into the caravan park on tuesday night, fairly late - about 8:30pm i think. The had hired one of the on-site cabins after 3 weeks up on the Cape. The young boy, around 9 years old was so excited he decided the whole caravan park needed to know that the cabin had a TV. 3 weeks in one of the best places in the world and all he cared about was being able to watch Ben10. Sad.


----------



## GregL (Jul 27, 2008)

Agreed. I've been off TV since the New Year. Used to be a typical 'get home, turn TV on before car keys are on the table' dude. Sucker for it.
Totally over all the shit. Miss a few things like the proper Top Gear (was entertaining for me since it first started), but thats about it.
I will occasionally get it out of the shed on a Friday night and watch a footy game, but thats it. Stay in touch with the world via newspaper, radio and internet.
Thats plenty.
No TV, and I'm getting shit done these days.


----------

