Banning of Seine Netting

[Echo7]

My pleasure Sir.

 

[Fin-S]

Then allow me to reserve my judgement until there is actual proof.
Do not ask for a vote based on supposition.
If we all convicted based on hearsay, then there may be a miscarriage of justice.
An opinion is different to a vote.

If you feel so strongly, then go and prove the issue.
Where is the pic of 155 illegal garrick?

 

[Cpt. Hook]

Echo7 wrote:

Fin-S wrote:

To date I have seen no CONCLUSIVE PROOF of the netters breaking the law. There has been lots of hearsay, lots of heavy breathing, fire and damnation stuff....but no proof.

 

I'm assuming then that the burden of proof rests with the accusers? By that logic there would be no whistleblowers on matters of corruption, no tip offs from members of the public about crimes unless prima facie evidence is provided. If one applies that to real life, no crimes would be solved unless a policeman was there while the offence is being commited.

A number of people have reported the same person for the same offences a number of times, the same way a group of concerned neighbours would complain if they suspected a private home in their area was being run as a brothel. It would be beyond the capability for an ordinary person to gather such evidence (in the interest of marital bliss). That duty would rest on the police, who no doubt take a VERY active interest in brothels.

The point is the authorities should have taken action long ago, the question is why are they so reluctant?

 

 

LOL, reminds me of the old days on Durban beachfront when a lady took her top off, all the cops from every station in Durban would come to arrest her.

 

[RobinF]

If you do some basic investigating, you'll see that there is proof of prior incidents, it's even been in the media.

As for the Garrick, thank goodness the law allows for convictions based on witness testamony, and not photos alone. I'll stick to the numerous witness accounts that recount the exact same story. (Witnesses that are not connected in any way).

As for me feeling so strongly that I should go prove it, thanks for the words of wisdom, but I am ahead of you on that one and actually, I've been beaten to it by someone else. (I guess the very well respected Marine Scientist that beat me to it must also be making it up?)

I assure you that I did not wake up one morning and decide today I am going to cause k*k. But I respect your stand on it and that is what makes this forum great, mutual respect for each other's opinion.

Fin-S wrote:

Then allow me to reserve my judgement until there is actual proof.
Do not ask for a vote based on supposition.
If we all convicted based on hearsay, then there may be a miscarriage of justice.
An opinion is different to a vote.

If you feel so strongly, then go and prove the issue.
Where is the pic of 155 illegal garrick?

 

[roryf]

I have a friend that has seen them get Oxeye Tarpon and sell them.

 

[benniejordaan]

RobinF wrote:

Hi MISA,

If you are asking me to give you proof of the 115+ Garrick, I cannot. I have three people that witnessed the capture and one witnessed the sale. Their account of this incident are all the same. But, they refuse to give formal statements because they park their vehicles right outside the netter's facility and as such are afraid. I can't force these guys. Some of the guys have had calls late at night and some get quietly told to be careful or else. It's so difficult for them. And thus, that is why so many are so quiet. You yourself have noticed that they are so quiet, right? Ask yourself why that is? The answer becomes obvious. Most have families, so I cannot blame them.

What I do know is that a lot of issues that arise with this netter and his catches are conveniently rubbed out. Corruption? According to what I have been told, it appears so. Proof? No.

As you know, this is all about tradition, the handing down of the lic from father to son. I do think that as a start, they should revoke any lic where the guys are catching illegally. I will never believe that any netter has his lic because of race. Maybe I am naive like that, but for me I am completely colour-blind (Figuratively).

Regards
Robin

I think they are just as guilty if they don't speak up.

 

[RobinF]

benniejordaan wrote:

RobinF wrote:

Hi MISA,

If you are asking me to give you proof of the 115+ Garrick, I cannot. I have three people that witnessed the capture and one witnessed the sale. Their account of this incident are all the same. But, they refuse to give formal statements because they park their vehicles right outside the netter's facility and as such are afraid. I can't force these guys. Some of the guys have had calls late at night and some get quietly told to be careful or else. It's so difficult for them. And thus, that is why so many are so quiet. You yourself have noticed that they are so quiet, right? Ask yourself why that is? The answer becomes obvious. Most have families, so I cannot blame them.

What I do know is that a lot of issues that arise with this netter and his catches are conveniently rubbed out. Corruption? According to what I have been told, it appears so. Proof? No.

As you know, this is all about tradition, the handing down of the lic from father to son. I do think that as a start, they should revoke any lic where the guys are catching illegally. I will never believe that any netter has his lic because of race. Maybe I am naive like that, but for me I am completely colour-blind (Figuratively).

Regards
Robin

I think they are just as guilty if they don't speak up.

Agreed.

 

[RobinF]

benniejordaan wrote:

RobinF wrote:

Hi MISA,

If you are asking me to give you proof of the 115+ Garrick, I cannot. I have three people that witnessed the capture and one witnessed the sale. Their account of this incident are all the same. But, they refuse to give formal statements because they park their vehicles right outside the netter's facility and as such are afraid. I can't force these guys. Some of the guys have had calls late at night and some get quietly told to be careful or else. It's so difficult for them. And thus, that is why so many are so quiet. You yourself have noticed that they are so quiet, right? Ask yourself why that is? The answer becomes obvious. Most have families, so I cannot blame them.

What I do know is that a lot of issues that arise with this netter and his catches are conveniently rubbed out. Corruption? According to what I have been told, it appears so. Proof? No.

As you know, this is all about tradition, the handing down of the lic from father to son. I do think that as a start, they should revoke any lic where the guys are catching illegally. I will never believe that any netter has his lic because of race. Maybe I am naive like that, but for me I am completely colour-blind (Figuratively).

Regards
Robin

I think they are just as guilty if they don't speak up.

Agreed

 

[Cpt. Hook]

benniejordaan wrote:

RobinF wrote:

Hi MISA,

If you are asking me to give you proof of the 115+ Garrick, I cannot. I have three people that witnessed the capture and one witnessed the sale. Their account of this incident are all the same. But, they refuse to give formal statements because they park their vehicles right outside the netter's facility and as such are afraid. I can't force these guys. Some of the guys have had calls late at night and some get quietly told to be careful or else. It's so difficult for them. And thus, that is why so many are so quiet. You yourself have noticed that they are so quiet, right? Ask yourself why that is? The answer becomes obvious. Most have families, so I cannot blame them.

What I do know is that a lot of issues that arise with this netter and his catches are conveniently rubbed out. Corruption? According to what I have been told, it appears so. Proof? No.

As you know, this is all about tradition, the handing down of the lic from father to son. I do think that as a start, they should revoke any lic where the guys are catching illegally. I will never believe that any netter has his lic because of race. Maybe I am naive like that, but for me I am completely colour-blind (Figuratively).

Regards
Robin

I think they are just as guilty if they don't speak up.

100% correct

 

[Serra Moz]

How do they issue licenses for Seine netters, is it a license that remains in the family? Traditional? Or issued on a 99yrs period for example?

 

[jb2]

Serra Moz wrote:

How do they issue licenses for Seine netters, is it a license that remains in the family? Traditional? Or issued on a 99yrs period for example?

Hi Serra Moz

The majority of the rights in the Cape are standard commercial fishing rights. A total allowable effort is decided of a number of operators per area is allocated.

So for example Macassar has one rights holder while Strandfontein to Muizenberg has two.

The applications are the same as all other commercial rights. So they had to apply on the prescribed forms just like I & J or Oceana would have.

One of the restrictions in many sectors including the netfish sector was that new entrants would not be allowed.

So at Naartjie's trek at Strandfontein -  Muizenberg would have been one of the oldest participants. I think that they bought those Chev - Ford bakkies for the trek and they are early 1970's models.

There is a bit of controversy surrounding an interim relief trek at Glencairn that was set up against scientific advice but I don't know enough about it.

Can I ask why are curious about the nature of the rights?

 

 

[Serra Moz]

jb2 wrote:

Serra Moz wrote:

How do they issue licenses for Seine netters, is it a license that remains in the family? Traditional? Or issued on a 99yrs period for example?

Hi Serra Moz

The majority of the rights in the Cape are standard commercial fishing rights. A total allowable effort is decided of a number of operators per area is allocated.

So for example Macassar has one rights holder while Strandfontein to Muizenberg has two.

The applications are the same as all other commercial rights. So they had to apply on the prescribed forms just like I & J or Oceana would have.

One of the restrictions in many sectors including the netfish sector was that new entrants would not be allowed.

So at Naartjie's trek at Strandfontein -  Muizenberg would have been one of the oldest participants. I think that they bought those Chev - Ford bakkies for the trek and they are early 1970's models.

There is a bit of controversy surrounding an interim relief trek at Glencairn that was set up against scientific advice but I don't know enough about it.

Can I ask why are curious about the nature of the rights?

 

Thanks for the reply, no particular reason for my question, I thought it was like a "right" lets say Mr. X and his family started netting 100yrs ago, thus the license stays in the family? So basically should one wish to net, he can then apply through the right channels and might be granted a license? Also, I thought say for example Mr. X and have have operated on Fish Hoek beach for 50yrs, that remains their area operations. Interesting!

Thanks

 

[jb2]

Serra Moz wrote:

jb2 wrote:

Serra Moz wrote:

How do they issue licenses for Seine netters, is it a license that remains in the family? Traditional? Or issued on a 99yrs period for example?

Hi Serra Moz

The majority of the rights in the Cape are standard commercial fishing rights. A total allowable effort is decided of a number of operators per area is allocated.

So for example Macassar has one rights holder while Strandfontein to Muizenberg has two.

The applications are the same as all other commercial rights. So they had to apply on the prescribed forms just like I & J or Oceana would have.

One of the restrictions in many sectors including the netfish sector was that new entrants would not be allowed.

So at Naartjie's trek at Strandfontein -  Muizenberg would have been one of the oldest participants. I think that they bought those Chev - Ford bakkies for the trek and they are early 1970's models.

There is a bit of controversy surrounding an interim relief trek at Glencairn that was set up against scientific advice but I don't know enough about it.

Can I ask why are curious about the nature of the rights?

 

Thanks for the reply, no particular reason for my question, I thought it was like a "right" lets say Mr. X and his family started netting 100yrs ago, thus the license stays in the family? So basically should one wish to net, he can then apply through the right channels and might be granted a license? Also, I thought say for example Mr. X and have have operated on Fish Hoek beach for 50yrs, that remains their area operations. Interesting!

Thanks

He Serra Moz

There is a lot of confusion doing the rounds.  The Marine Living Resources Act came into being in 1998 but there were no real allocations in linefish or netfish until about 2003. This meant that there were people operating on exemptions and all kinds of things.

There were also weird kinds of treknet rights that farmers used to have in areas adjoining the sea. They were known as "rantsoenpermitte" to allow the farmer to fish and dry the fish to feed his workers.

There was a also some type of provison from other local authorities but those have fallen by the wayside.

One of the things that people keep missing is that a treknet (in False Bay at least) is a full commercial operation and is no different from any handline boat.

It would help if people would imagine the treknet as a chukkie that happens to operate from the shore.

It is also handy to remember that the public have a strong tradition of disliking treknetting. The earliest complaints go back to the VOC and more focussed complaints are from 1875!

 

[Serra Moz]

jb2 wrote:

Serra Moz wrote:

jb2 wrote:

Serra Moz wrote:

How do they issue licenses for Seine netters, is it a license that remains in the family? Traditional? Or issued on a 99yrs period for example?

Hi Serra Moz

The majority of the rights in the Cape are standard commercial fishing rights. A total allowable effort is decided of a number of operators per area is allocated.

So for example Macassar has one rights holder while Strandfontein to Muizenberg has two.

The applications are the same as all other commercial rights. So they had to apply on the prescribed forms just like I & J or Oceana would have.

One of the restrictions in many sectors including the netfish sector was that new entrants would not be allowed.

So at Naartjie's trek at Strandfontein -  Muizenberg would have been one of the oldest participants. I think that they bought those Chev - Ford bakkies for the trek and they are early 1970's models.

There is a bit of controversy surrounding an interim relief trek at Glencairn that was set up against scientific advice but I don't know enough about it.

Can I ask why are curious about the nature of the rights?

 

Thanks for the reply, no particular reason for my question, I thought it was like a "right" lets say Mr. X and his family started netting 100yrs ago, thus the license stays in the family? So basically should one wish to net, he can then apply through the right channels and might be granted a license? Also, I thought say for example Mr. X and have have operated on Fish Hoek beach for 50yrs, that remains their area operations. Interesting!

Thanks

He Serra Moz

There is a lot of confusion doing the rounds.  The Marine Living Resources Act came into being in 1998 but there were no real allocations in linefish or netfish until about 2003. This meant that there were people operating on exemptions and all kinds of things.

There were also weird kinds of treknet rights that farmers used to have in areas adjoining the sea. They were known as "rantsoenpermitte" to allow the farmer to fish and dry the fish to feed his workers.

There was a also some type of provison from other local authorities but those have fallen by the wayside.

One of the things that people keep missing is that a treknet (in False Bay at least) is a full commercial operation and is no different from any handline boat.

It would help if people would imagine the treknet as a chukkie that happens to operate from the shore.

It is also handy to remember that the public have a strong tradition of disliking treknetting. The earliest complaints go back to the VOC and more focussed complaints are from 1875!

Always good info, I enjoy reading you replies...as far back as 1875! Wow! interesting. Being up in Moz I always wondered what the Inhaca (sandflats) would have been without the netting...bonefish and many others species - gone! Well, sadly in some cases people have to eat.

Refering to the "rantsoenpermitte" still allowed? If so, in which areas?

Again thanks for your info and history lesson, appreciated

 

[jb2]

Serra Moz wrote:

jb2 wrote:

Serra Moz wrote:

jb2 wrote:

Serra Moz wrote:

How do they issue licenses for Seine netters, is it a license that remains in the family? Traditional? Or issued on a 99yrs period for example?

Hi Serra Moz

The majority of the rights in the Cape are standard commercial fishing rights. A total allowable effort is decided of a number of operators per area is allocated.

So for example Macassar has one rights holder while Strandfontein to Muizenberg has two.

The applications are the same as all other commercial rights. So they had to apply on the prescribed forms just like I & J or Oceana would have.

One of the restrictions in many sectors including the netfish sector was that new entrants would not be allowed.

So at Naartjie's trek at Strandfontein -  Muizenberg would have been one of the oldest participants. I think that they bought those Chev - Ford bakkies for the trek and they are early 1970's models.

There is a bit of controversy surrounding an interim relief trek at Glencairn that was set up against scientific advice but I don't know enough about it.

Can I ask why are curious about the nature of the rights?

 

Thanks for the reply, no particular reason for my question, I thought it was like a "right" lets say Mr. X and his family started netting 100yrs ago, thus the license stays in the family? So basically should one wish to net, he can then apply through the right channels and might be granted a license? Also, I thought say for example Mr. X and have have operated on Fish Hoek beach for 50yrs, that remains their area operations. Interesting!

Thanks

He Serra Moz

There is a lot of confusion doing the rounds.  The Marine Living Resources Act came into being in 1998 but there were no real allocations in linefish or netfish until about 2003. This meant that there were people operating on exemptions and all kinds of things.

There were also weird kinds of treknet rights that farmers used to have in areas adjoining the sea. They were known as "rantsoenpermitte" to allow the farmer to fish and dry the fish to feed his workers.

There was a also some type of provison from other local authorities but those have fallen by the wayside.

One of the things that people keep missing is that a treknet (in False Bay at least) is a full commercial operation and is no different from any handline boat.

It would help if people would imagine the treknet as a chukkie that happens to operate from the shore.

It is also handy to remember that the public have a strong tradition of disliking treknetting. The earliest complaints go back to the VOC and more focussed complaints are from 1875!

Always good info, I enjoy reading you replies...as far back as 1875! Wow! interesting. Being up in Moz I always wondered what the Inhaca (sandflats) would have been without the netting...bonefish and many others species - gone! Well, sadly in some cases people have to eat.

Refering to the "rantsoenpermitte" still allowed? If so, in which areas?

Again thanks for your info and history lesson, appreciated

Hi

The rantsonepermitte have long since gone but they must have been handy to a farmer to feed his workers.

I remember a fishing book written by a guy from a farming family in the Hamburg district of the Eastern Cape. Every year they would go down to the coast and catch and salt grunter in the lagoons until they had enough to last them for the year.

Van Riebeeck relied heavily on treknetting to help him in the early years. He would have trekked the area that is now where the Cape Town station and Golden Acre mall now stand.

He also ate a shellfish that he called "klipkont". The word was later changed to "klipkous". In the 1650's people used to speak more directly than we do today.

I apologise if I have "highjacked" a thread. I really don't think that South Africans speak in linear threads either. Americans might do it but we don't.

We kind of speak in non linear currents that eddy and flow.

I came out of a kloof in the Boland once asked the farmer whether it was possible to fish the adjoining kloof and the farmer started telling us a story about the kloof nearby and it ran sort of like this.

"I tried to get into the kloof but the bush was too thick not even my dog could get into that bush and this dog was from Oom Flip and Oom Flip's dogs can go anywhere. And they had to be able to go anywhere to chase leopards. Because a leopard can come any time and it is no use to try to set a trap for him but rather wait for the lambing season and then rub your self with duiwelsdrek so that he can't smell you and then go and lie down next to the lamb like the bible says and wait with your dog who has also been rubbed with duiwelsdrek. And duiwelsdrek is just the extract from a type of plant that is like fennel and it is good for clearing up spider bites and the old people used to use it before antibiiotics. Because remember when the Spanish Flue came through our district there were many that were laid low. And at that time my fathers older brother had just started agricultural college in Pretoria.........."

If you want linear go get a ruler (Which of course we called "lineal" but that was at a time when we were worried about "Anglisisme" and if we said ruler our Onnie would......) you get the point

I never found out if their were fish in the adjoining kloof either.

 

[Serra Moz]

No not hijacked at all, history and good info mate!

More please!

Thanks!

 

[RobinF]

I started this thread and it all revolves around the discussion that you are having, don't worry about broadening the topic, all good info.

Would like to meet that farmer that slaughtered Grunter like that and slap him upside the head and thank him for his wealthy contribution toward the species demise!

 

[Serra Moz]

RobinF wrote:

I started this thread and it all revolves around the discussion that you are having, don't worry about broadening the topic, all good info.

Would like to meet that farmer that slaughtered Grunter like that and slap him upside the head and thank him for his wealthy contribution toward the species demise!

I think that the person in question at the time might not have known any better?? Perhaps Grunters were in such abundance that they assumed it would be an everlasting stock, thus they continued "filling up" every year.

 

[RobinF]

I agree, just my sentiments.

 

[Serra Moz]

RobinF wrote:

I agree, just my sentiments.

Spot on, but I think today with media/education... and of course citizens who cares like us Sealine okes we can make a difference.