im pretty sure it states that a barra cannot be taken out of the water for photos in closed season ,(everyone sometime who chases salt fish will get a bycatch of barra in closed season ) if possible remove hooks in the net then release .asap
[/i]Thanks Al.
That was an answer cobbled together and given by DAF Qld in response to queries over the meaning of "immediately released". People wanted to take a photo or measure (or both) and that simply wasn't allowed under the "immediately release" provisions of the Act.
Facing the reality that their unrealistic law flew in the face of what the public wanted (photo and measure), knowing the difficulty of having the Act changed and knowing that it was impossible to regulate, DAF came up with those "mickey-mouse" guidelines by putting their own interpretation on what "immediately" meant to satisfy public expectations. A commendable response but simply another band-aid for legislation that was so comprehensively flawed.
In the case of this guy, "the duck that clearly didn't line up" to exempt him from the Act ( Section 12) was the one that quacked about intentionally or recklessly handling regulated fish causing harm or injury. That's pretty obvious from the way he's handing it (recklessly causing harm).
I met with DAF's Qld head of the boating and fisheries patrol in Rocky yesterday. The subject of DAF's progress in investigating this incident came up.
Yesterday was the 21st Feb and 26 days after the report was first made to DAF (who claim that they didn't receive the complaint until 7 th Feb making it now 14 days later).
Whilst he didn't come straight out and say it, the "message" I took away after enquiring was that
DAF had still not identified the person some 2 weeks or nearly 4 weeks later. Either example is abysmal investigatory progress.
Hard to believe isn't it considering the lines of enquiry available, the info given to them including workplace, place of purchase of boat and motor package and that Rocky city is smaller than Darwin?
Unlikely as it may seem, the issue of investigatory competence arose in the conversation along with a question about quality and adequacy of training. We're talking about senior field staff here as well as recruits.
Responsibility for the mess that DAF field officers as well as the public are grappling with daily, lies squarely at the feet of DAF management and is of longstanding ( a public service cultural issue of managing upwards and neglect).
The reality is that no adequate or speedy response has been (or will be) forthcoming by the regulator and no message will be sent to the community or the likes of this guy (there are others).
There'll be no positive outcome and certainly no evidence to support any chance of a prosecution despite any DAF huffing and puffing.
It's hard to believe that confidence in the way that Qld DAF "does business" could drop further than it has over the last 5-10 years but its been inevitable with the DAF culture of self-focus.
This is now an even "lower low".
DAF is promising to do better with a "new deal" about changed practices, more engagement with the community along with new tools.
Poised with a bucket of eggs and a big stick but don't hold your breath if you're expecting an omelette. Track record isn't good.
The NT has experienced water police officers who undertake fisheries duties so investigatory competence is inherent in their activities.
However, there's a move there to use more public servants (like in Qld) to do the work.
Here is the B&FP recruit starting point in Qld.
https://tafeqld.edu.au/courses/18096/ce ... stigations
Two things jumped out from the list of study units.
First cab off the rank was about public service stuff. There's a place for that but not at the head of the list inferring highest priority.
The second thing is
what wasn't there.
Importance of engagement with the community in the investigatory process. THAT'S where 99% of information comes from (IF they trust that the investigator will do something with it). Building up reliable sources (not gossip).
