North Australian FISH FINDER TM forums

No Hemi, if you have read our press release and listened to radio and tv interviews we DO NOT support random breath testing by water police. The police wont target everyone because without a minimum blood alcohol limit they would not be able to prosecute, the ability to test reckless and irresponsible boat drivers who are heavily intoxicated is an aid for prosecution not a benchmark to prosecute by. Give me a call Hemi, i'll run you through the process and the legislation behind it so there is no confusion.

Muppets acting like muppets tend to stop when the coppers are within cooee. Surely all that is needed is more of a presence on the water. Opening it up to revenue raising won't end well.

Tristian are you or have you ever been a member of the CLP?

Ghound, I've never been affiliated with any political party either personally or professionally, why do you ask?

ghound wrote:

No Hemi, if you have read our press release and listened to radio and tv interviews we DO NOT support random breath testing by water police. The police wont target everyone because without a minimum blood alcohol limit they would not be able to prosecute, the ability to test reckless and irresponsible boat drivers who are heavily intoxicated is an aid for prosecution not a benchmark to prosecute by. Give me a call Hemi, i'll run you through the process and the legislation behind it so there is no confusion.

Muppets acting like muppets tend to stop when the coppers are within cooee. Surely all that is needed is more of a presence on the water. Opening it up to revenue raising won't end welll

This is also a very good point, from what both are saying the coppers are just looking for a little more power to prosecute these muppets. With out putting a figure on it ties up the court system and the coppers time too, if its left up the courts 9 times out of 10 they let them to weizel out of it.

If there is a better option for this to happen I'm sure afant and the police would be all ears.
As quoted above a greater police presents on the water would go along way, but they what to they do if they do nab them.

I may be a little bias as I don't feel the need to knock back 1/2 a box of beer to enjoy my fishing. I always take a few incase I catch a prize fish but 9 times out of 9 they come back with me haha.

Good to know.

Just interested.

Tristan, who was is that brought the issue up? Police, government, afant?

Mick, I can't comment in any real detail because of the confidentiality regarding the water safety advisory committee but i can tell you it wasn't AFANT. We have never advocated for a minimum blood alcohol limit for fishing skippers we just wanted a reasonable position most people would agree with that would remove dangerous and heavily intoxicated boat drivers from the water.,

Can someone explain what cases clog up the courts at the moment?

If its a trivial matter I would expect an on the spot fine. If your being a F**king D**khead that usually means you'll end up in court or am I missing something.

My take is the Water Safety Advisory Committee was set up and they where a bunch of public servants paid to do a job. They had to come up with something to make the money spent not look like it was wasted so they have come up with this nonsense. Now it will keep their contract going for another year at least and perhaps make a few new roles once new laws are made up and further departmental changes grow on the back of this extra paper work.

The poll has 77% of people polled on this forum against the DUI. Who the hell did AFANT consult to come up with the decision to back this reform?

Walkabout wrote:
The poll has 77% of people polled on this forum against the DUI. Who the hell did AFANT consult to come up with the decision to back this reform?

Different questions have been asked, whilst 77% do not want .05, it seems that afants position is the same, and agreeing with you.

tristan.sloan wrote:
AFANT does NOT support a minimum blood alcohol limit for any skipper operating a recreational vessel, it understands most fisherman behave responsibly while drinking and supports the right of the average fisherman to have a drink while out on the water. It DOES NOT however support heavily intoxicated skippers driving recklessly and putting themselves and other members of the public at risk. We support the right for water police to identify these people, remove them from the water if necessary and take a blood alcohol reading if necessary to aid in prosecution.

Tristan, can you confirm that the police do not currently have the ability to breath test a skipper who has been involved in an accident of being done for dangerous boating type offence. I find that hard to beleave, and could not work out why they would not be able to do this. And if they can currently do this I don't understand afants position at all.

If this is the case I'm sure 99% of all fishos would agree to this

In an accident situation it would come down to safe navigation and diligence under USSL regs I suggest. If somebody was hurt you would be on the bag in a heartbeat I would hope. Woops I am not Tristan

Walkabout wrote:My take is the Water Safety Advisory Committee was set up and they where a bunch of public servants paid to do a job. They had to come up with something to make the money spent not look like it was wasted so they have come up with this nonsense.

Bingo

AM wrote:In an accident situation it would come down to safe navigation and diligence under USSL regs I suggest. If somebody was hurt you would be on the bag in a heartbeat I would hope. Woops I am not Tristan

USL code was introduced for the domestic commercial vessels..
We no longer fall under USL, we now come under the NSCV code.

Mick, I can confirm that currently there is no powers for police to breath test skippers at all...even in the event of an accident because there is no legal limit for drinking and driving on the water, right now it doesn't matter how drunk the skipper may be in an accident its not illegal for him to be drunk and driving his boat, hence our position on reckless, dangerous driving while being heavily intoxicated on the water

Walkabout, I think you are confusing AFANT's stance, we are AGAINST set blood alcohol limits such as 0.05, same offer as I have made to the other members on here, call me if you don't understand our position and I will explain it for you

Without a blood alcohol reading as an aid to prosecute intoxicated and dangerous skippers, it simply becomes a case of "he said, she said" and is almost impossible to successfully prosecute

tristan.sloan wrote:Mick, I can confirm that currently there is no powers for police to breath test skippers at all...even in the event of an accident because there is no legal limit for drinking and driving on the water, right now it doesn't matter how drunk the skipper may be in an accident its not illegal for him to be drunk and driving his boat, hence our position on reckless, dangerous driving while being heavily intoxicated on the water

Thanks for the clarification Tristan. Good luck to anyone arguing that the cops should not be able to breath test a skipper endangering themselves/others and/or following an accident. It fails the logic test.

I thinks matts question on the other thread may have muddied the issue.
As said above, and as I have said before, I don't think any other responsible person/ fisho could come to a different position.