North Australian FISH FINDER TM forums

This is the reason AFANT has no members , the policy position of AFANT should reflect the views of the general public who go fishing not just their members, or the committee. AFANT are set up with public funds to represent the views of all recreational fisherman not just their members.
Here is a few questions for AFANT seeing as they have publicly released their position I would assume that they have done some research into these things.
- Why did AFANT consult the NT Water Police and other members of the Water Safety Advisory Committee in arriving at your position?
- Why did you not consult the wider fishing community?
- Why is there such secrecy surrounding the members of the Water Safety Advisory Committee?
- Are there are any stats on the instances of Skippers driving recklessly and alcohol?
- How many incidents in boats have been related to alcohol?
- If not why are AFANT supporting this?
- How many cases have been brought before the courts using existing legislation?
- And what have the results been?
- Why is AFANT willing to offer up more power to police without knowing if the current legislation works?
- Why is this even an issue if the police aren’t willing to enforce the existing legislation?-
- Why are AFANT trying to allow breath tests instead of making police do their job and investigate reckless or negligent behaviour?
- Why should someone who has had a few beers but acting in a safe manner get persecuted however sober idiots who are acting dangerously not?
- Why are AFANT trying to tie stupidity to alcohol?

There are idiots on the water that are sober and on drugs, the regulation below covers anyone on the water not just someone who wants to have a few beers.

To recommend a DUI provision without setting a limit for the definition of intoxication, will lead to Court to set this limit through Judicial Precedent, the courts may set the limit at zero!

How often are police on the water now (not at boat ramps)? I’ve only seen police on the water twice in the last 20 years (been checked a few more times at the ramp) so the ability for them to be able to take BAC readings when an offence has taken place is very low. In most cases if there is an incident on the water the police take quite a few hours to respond by which time the BAC will probably have dropped to an acceptable level. Let’s be honest how often are police going to be able to get a breath analysis done within 4 hours (current requirement under the Traffic Act) when the put you on the bag at the mouth of Shady or when you’ve crashed your boat? Never.

However if there was for instance a boat crash the police should be able to determine the cause and if it is warranted take action under a Reckless Navigation Regulation. Police do not need to breath test someone to be able to charge them with Reckless Navigation. If needed update the offence to one of strict liability and increase the penalty based on the severity of the offence. This would still allow people to go out overnight and have a few beers, and should something unexpected happen they would legally still be able to drive the boat to a safer anchorage to escape a storm or the attention of a crocodile. By doing this it removes the onus on the police and will allow them to target the idiots on the water more effectively. It also means that people will still be able to enjoy the Territory lifestyle.

Big Col

Found this out today...

If you contact the NT government and ask who makes up the NT water safety advisory councils committee...?

The answer is .. Alderman Bob Elix.

Thats it, one bloke is the committee apparently...

WTF????

Big Col you have asked all the questions that have been running through my mind. I asked what cases were clogging up the courts? No one has given an answer on that.

As for police on the water I have had the police come over to my boat three times in 25 years. Once on the way to beer can because my boat was to its capacity, 7 young woman in bikinis and they checked I had all the safety gear for everyone. The second time I was making my way back into the harbour and the girls on the boat had their boobs out and they stopped us to check our safety gear and eski for fish. The last time we didn't realise we had parked slightly too close to the fireworks barge. Everyone of those times everyone on the boat was drinking everyone would have been over 0.05 and never were the police anything but polite and they used common sense to see we were doing nothing wrong. Why would you change that. At the ramps I have been stopped many times and asked for checks on fish and safety gear.

The deeper you look into this AFANT / Water Safety Advisory Council joint decision the more it seems they have none of the locals in mind.

Just a money making scam in the making!!!

Who reverses the car and trailer down the ramp or do you just drop below .05 walking to the car park.

Darwinblue - We can assume responsible people as they wait till they are under 0.05 to drive home.

If drunks at ramps was so prevalent our intelligent police force would be onto it. After all they go to all the accidents and have all the statistics to help them plan where the trouble hot spots are for drink driving.

Is this the only argument why we need to impose DUI laws on the water?

Walkabout, I want to be on your boat

Col, I've answered many of these questions already if you look through past posts. Did you by any chance hear warren de with on tales from the tinny this morning? misinformation and ignorance is our biggest enemy here. It's saturday....I'm going to go fishing and have a few beers but call me on Monday and I'll answer each question individually.
Before I go let me make one thing very clear. This position was arrived at after our committee consulted extensively with our members not just recently but over many years. I understand your not a member and my advice is to join AFANT if you want input in recreational and boating policy decisions or legislation changes. Otherwise without being involved in a representative organisation you might get left in the dark.

For anybody else who has questions regarding this issue or any others, my phone number is below and my door is always open.....well, at least Monday to Friday

Hemi, thanks for calling me the other day so I'll stop packing fishing gear and clarify that for you, Bob is the Darwin city council representative on the water safety advisory committee, it's made up of 11 other members with an interest in water safety such as the coastguard, surf lifesaving, water police, dept of transport, dept of health, AFANT ect ect

As I said in my earlier post before misinformation and ignorance is our worst enemy.

Tristan,

I mentioned this in another post but worth mentioning again I feel..

If you research other states legislation... It appears that random breath testing can only apply
to vessels that are underway or drifting. RBT can not apply to vessels at anchor, berthed or moored.

This is certainly the case accordinging to the latest NSW boating handbook...

If NT adopted the same policy, as I'm guessing they would? The over nighters etc would be some what happier..

What a load of poop and sounds like a recruitment drive by afant
Why should any citizen in a democratic grubberment have to join an organisation in order to be heard because that is basicly what you are saying in your last post Tristan Sloan
I think the Federal Government should have a good look at the lot of you and if not at least a local member of parliament should bring this bullcrap up in parliament,
They are the ones who should be speaking for us on behalf of us as to what we want ,not afant
The government including the prime minister in a democratic society is only suppose to be spokespersons for the people( the majority not affant a handful of politcal wannabes) but it's all gone wrong somewhere and we are all being dictated to now( THIS IS WHAT YOU WILL GET ) not this is what you wanted
I could go on but it's hardly worth the effort when you know things to come are already a forgone coclusion
I don't drink so that wont affect me but the flow on from it will (License,boat registration ect.)
End of my rant

Thanks hemi, I certainly agree that would be a commonsense approach to the NT

Shags, as an individual you have a right to be heard in any democratic process but you have to participate. When was the last time you read a submission or participated in a review of legislation regarding recreational fishing? I assure you many of our volunteer committee members who donate their free time do so frequently often on their weekends or at night in order to represent the majority of recreational fisherman who cant be bothered to do so but scream blue murder when something pops up that they don't agree with.

While we listen and take note of public opinions, such as I am doing here on this forum, the majority of AFANT's policies are crafted by its committee after consultation with it members. For the princely sum of $15 you can join AFANT, in fact that price includes your whole family. It's great value and a lot cheaper than most fishing lures we spend our money on (and lose!) each weekend. If you wish to participate I am currently working on a submission for the review of commonwealth marine reserves you can comment on


Shags.....AFANTs policy on boat rego and licences is that we don't support them either

I'll just leave you blokes with it and go fishing while I still can for free
There's a lot of good work you people do but some I feel not so good

The best thing we can do as non members of AFANT is make it known that they don't speak for us.
Might be wishful thinking but I am hoping that Govt officials read forums such as these and work out the majority of recreational participants in the NT are not members of AFANT. Further more much of their policy isn't the view of the majority.

"Afant doesn't speak for me"

...i can see the bumper sticker now..!