I might have to come over very harsh to prove a

[Imfeni]

I might have to come over very harsh to prove a point so keep your stupid comments to yourself

Don’t get me wrong I enjoy some of the post’s on Sealine and have been following a lot of comments and post over the past year or more, yes I most probably have not been on Sealine long enough (Only 200 posts) to express my opinion.
But does it not bother anyone how some people react to certain statements or bad news for Anglers.

It almost falls in the same category as the following :

“A woman/girl gets raped” Have you ever heard the comment : “Did you how she dresses”

“They break into someone’s house” Why did he not have more security”

DO YOU GET THE IDEA – NOW BACK TO FISHING

“Night fishing on a river gets banned” And 50% of people jump on the “Green Wagon” it’s good for fishing / Preserve our Stock “What about the bigger picture”

Preserve stock for whom, 50% of recreational Anglers fish at night preserve the stock and keep to their bag limits, But 1 person (Maybe more) brakes the law and everybody else must suffer?????

One person causes damage or drive’s recklessly on a beach and all beach driving gets banned

AND I CAN GO ON

75% of the people that are involved in making of these laws has never in their life had a fishing rod in their hand and only take part in making laws to spoil it for others

I HATE THE SHOTGUN APPROACH OUR LAW MAKERS APPLY AS THEY ARE TO USELESS TO ENFORCE THE LAW

I HATE THE SO CALLED GREENIES THAT SUPPORT THE LAW MAKERS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO DO

 

[BlouwaterBaaier]

If the greenies did not do their job the following would not be daily life

catching a shad
catching kob
catching a poenskop
catching red romans
finding prawn insaldanha

in fact many of the names here listed above and countless others, are actually easier to catch since the green heads got restrictions imposed

and the list goes on

if the greenies did not do their job

Perly would be easier to sell than drugs

and the list goes on.

sure you may hate people like me for being green.

but people like me look at you and ask, what about your kids? dont they want to fish someday?

or will you be the parent that tells them to go smokkel tik coz the pay is better than a day job

As for the trek netters, they are literally going to die out within the next 10 or so years, they are subsistence fishermen, many been trekking nets since they were 6

many of them not getting that much money for the fish due to the bruising, and having an uneducated family to feed, would you prefer they stop doing this and start selling tik?

their licensing is restricted to these individuals who are elderly at the current stage, their license dies with them

 

[FeedingFrenzy]

And with ridiculous statements like these I am sure you will not stick around for much longer.  The Rape, Pillage and Plunder Society are starting a Forum for all like-minded indicviduals - keep a look-out for it because with your attitude you could be Global Moderator!

The coastal driving ban was effected because of damage to sensitive ecosystems as well the biota therein - African oystercatchers and various other birds nests, turtle nests etc.  There is no such thing as "We have caught Mr A Hole damaging bird nests with his vehicle on the beach and he is BANNED.  The rest of you may continue driving on the beach, please do not do what Mr A Hole did."  Nope.  It is as a result of data accumulated and extrapolated, of potential and cumulative impacts assessed and all the risks identified and realistic, pragmatic management interventions devised.  In this case the only pragmatic management intervention was a TOTAL BAN on beach driving.  Not temprary.  Permanent.  Klaar.  Verby.  Not-negotiable.  And for damn good reasons.

Next - the Breede River.  I do not know if you have ever visited the Breede River estuary.  During holiday season it is swarming with anglers.  Policing that bunch is nightmare.  Now add to the recipe: most probably the second-most important estuary after St Lucia - in terms of biodiversity value and abundance.  Next, add: the most concentrated, accessible population of large dusky cob.  Now for the best bit: add a very large heaped bakkie load of jerks!  This is a special type of jerk - doesn't give a hoot about bag-limits, the size limit, the ecology or any other angler.  Go thank them for the night fishing ban.

Given the miniscule resources available for compliance-testing (nice words for policing!) on the river, the only realistic, pragmatic management intervention left for the Authorities was to impose a total ban on night fishing.  You see Imfeni, it's not about you, it's about conserving representative ecosystems to ensure their continued persistence.  It's not about you in your short life time, it's about enabling ecosystems and their biota to continuously evolve in the ever-changing natural environment.  Without a space and the components to do so there will be nothing in the future.  Your kids and mine will live a miserable life in a poor world.

So please, think before you post reactive knee-jerk statements again.

 

[Marthin]

FeedingFrenzy wrote:

And with ridiculous statements like these I am sure you will not stick around for much longer.  The Rape, Pillage and Plunder Society are starting a Forum for all like-minded indicviduals - keep a look-out for it because with your attitude you could be Global Moderator!

The coastal driving ban was effected because of damage to sensitive ecosystems as well the biota therein - African oystercatchers and various other birds nests, turtle nests etc.  There is no such thing as "We have caught Mr A Hole damaging bird nests with his vehicle on the beach and he is BANNED.  The rest of you may continue driving on the beach, please do not do what Mr A Hole did."  Nope.  It is as a result of data accumulated and extrapolated, of potential and cumulative impacts assessed and all the risks identified and realistic, pragmatic management interventions devised.  In this case the only pragmatic management intervention was a TOTAL BAN on beach driving.  Not temprary.  Permanent.  Klaar.  Verby.  Not-negotiable.  And for damn good reasons.

Next - the Breede River.  I do not know if you have ever visited the Breede River estuary.  During holiday season it is swarming with anglers.  Policing that bunch is nightmare.  Now add to the recipe: most probably the second-most important estuary after St Lucia - in terms of biodiversity value and abundance.  Next, add: the most concentrated, accessible population of large dusky cob.  Now for the best bit: add a very large heaped bakkie load of jerks!  This is a special type of jerk - doesn't give a hoot about bag-limits, the size limit, the ecology or any other angler.  Go thank them for the night fishing ban.

Given the miniscule resources available for compliance-testing (nice words for policing!) on the river, the only realistic, pragmatic management intervention left for the Authorities was to impose a total ban on night fishing.  You see Imfeni, it's not about you, it's about conserving representative ecosystems to ensure their continued persistence.  It's not about you in your short life time, it's about enabling ecosystems and their biota to continuously evolve in the ever-changing natural environment.  Without a space and the components to do so there will be nothing in the future.  Your kids and mine will live a miserable life in a poor world.

So please, think before you post reactive knee-jerk statements again.

::respekt(goodp_

 

[BigBen]

FeedingFrenzy wrote:

And with ridiculous statements like these I am sure you will not stick around for much longer.  The Rape, Pillage and Plunder Society are starting a Forum for all like-minded indicviduals - keep a look-out for it because with your attitude you could be Global Moderator!

The coastal driving ban was effected because of damage to sensitive ecosystems as well the biota therein - African oystercatchers and various other birds nests, turtle nests etc.  There is no such thing as "We have caught Mr A Hole damaging bird nests with his vehicle on the beach and he is BANNED.  The rest of you may continue driving on the beach, please do not do what Mr A Hole did."  Nope.  It is as a result of data accumulated and extrapolated, of potential and cumulative impacts assessed and all the risks identified and realistic, pragmatic management interventions devised.  In this case the only pragmatic management intervention was a TOTAL BAN on beach driving.  Not temprary.  Permanent.  Klaar.  Verby.  Not-negotiable.  And for damn good reasons.

Next - the Breede River.  I do not know if you have ever visited the Breede River estuary.  During holiday season it is swarming with anglers.  Policing that bunch is nightmare.  Now add to the recipe: most probably the second-most important estuary after St Lucia - in terms of biodiversity value and abundance.  Next, add: the most concentrated, accessible population of large dusky cob.  Now for the best bit: add a very large heaped bakkie load of jerks!  This is a special type of jerk - doesn't give a hoot about bag-limits, the size limit, the ecology or any other angler.  Go thank them for the night fishing ban.

Given the miniscule resources available for compliance-testing (nice words for policing!) on the river, the only realistic, pragmatic management intervention left for the Authorities was to impose a total ban on night fishing.  You see Imfeni, it's not about you, it's about conserving representative ecosystems to ensure their continued persistence.  It's not about you in your short life time, it's about enabling ecosystems and their biota to continuously evolve in the ever-changing natural environment.  Without a space and the components to do so there will be nothing in the future.  Your kids and mine will live a miserable life in a poor world.

So please, think before you post reactive knee-jerk statements again.

BRILLIANT....
and hhbbdd: to you..

Case closed

 

[BlouwaterBaaier]

FeedingFrenzy wrote:

And with ridiculous statements like these I am sure you will not stick around for much longer.  The Rape, Pillage and Plunder Society are starting a Forum for all like-minded indicviduals - keep a look-out for it because with your attitude you could be Global Moderator!

The coastal driving ban was effected because of damage to sensitive ecosystems as well the biota therein - African oystercatchers and various other birds nests, turtle nests etc.  There is no such thing as "We have caught Mr A Hole damaging bird nests with his vehicle on the beach and he is BANNED.  The rest of you may continue driving on the beach, please do not do what Mr A Hole did."  Nope.  It is as a result of data accumulated and extrapolated, of potential and cumulative impacts assessed and all the risks identified and realistic, pragmatic management interventions devised.  In this case the only pragmatic management intervention was a TOTAL BAN on beach driving.  Not temprary.  Permanent.  Klaar.  Verby.  Not-negotiable.  And for damn good reasons.

Next - the Breede River.  I do not know if you have ever visited the Breede River estuary.  During holiday season it is swarming with anglers.  Policing that bunch is nightmare.  Now add to the recipe: most probably the second-most important estuary after St Lucia - in terms of biodiversity value and abundance.  Next, add: the most concentrated, accessible population of large dusky cob.  Now for the best bit: add a very large heaped bakkie load of jerks!  This is a special type of jerk - doesn't give a hoot about bag-limits, the size limit, the ecology or any other angler.  Go thank them for the night fishing ban.

Given the miniscule resources available for compliance-testing (nice words for policing!) on the river, the only realistic, pragmatic management intervention left for the Authorities was to impose a total ban on night fishing.  You see Imfeni, it's not about you, it's about conserving representative ecosystems to ensure their continued persistence.  It's not about you in your short life time, it's about enabling ecosystems and their biota to continuously evolve in the ever-changing natural environment.  Without a space and the components to do so there will be nothing in the future.  Your kids and mine will live a miserable life in a poor world.

So please, think before you post reactive knee-jerk statements again.

Excelent point!

These days Oyster catchers for example are far more abundant than before the beach driving ban.

just to name 1.

personally i prefer, rather than blanking due to fishing stocks that are dead

 

[boeta brown]

Hi guys,
Don't you think a total ban on night fishing or beach driving is the easiest solution? Why can't the officials in charge put measures in place to enforce the current laws? It's symptomatic of our country. If people are driving on restricted beaches destroying fauna and flora, government has got to put measures in place to curb these perpetrators. The first measure would be to appoint officials to enforce the no beach driving law or bag limits or whatever law gets broken. But what usually happens is the person appointed to enforce these laws isn't doing his/her job, is incompetent, just doesn't care or they are under staffed and can't do their job effectively. So instead of finding a solution that works for conservationists and recreational anglers alike government just enforces a total ban. The poor recreational angler gets the short end of the stick while government covers up their incompetence. Why not employ more inspectors in these problem areas? One of these days some poor angler will get hurt hunting cob at night in Macs and the governments solution will be to ban all night fishing there. Look what happened at Saldanha dam: some guys where caught poaching perly. Solution: close the dam to all angling even though 99% of guys angling there abides by the rules? In my time angling the dam I've only been asked for my permit twice. Everybody knows there's perly there so one would expect the inspectors to be there on a regular basis, but unfortunately that is not the case opening up opportunities for one or two guys to illegally remove perlie. A better solution would have been to repair the gate in the fence to restrict access to the pipe, then we could have still enjoyed the quite and tranquility of the dam. I hope you can see my point of view.

 

[FeedingFrenzy]

We are all personally affected by one or other ban.  And that is the crux of the matter: it is personal.  What we should be looking at is how does this enable the meagre resources to be better applied.  not that I'm saying that the meagre resources are well-applied at - in fact I'm not even sure that they are being applied at all.

I was employed as a nature conservator by the provincial nature conservation authority in the Western Cape and had first-hand experience of how meagre those budgets were.  And how quickly the staff become demoralised by constant higher-level in-fighting.  It's easy to point fingers at the guys on the ground but when halfway through your financial year your operating budget is taken away because the money is needed elsewhere - well, what you gonna do?  Get in your own car and go and patrol?  I was told at the time to ask complainants to please come and fetch me so I could perform my duties!  It's no laughing matter.

Before you all get gal-siekte and want to see doom and gloom and bemoan the state of Government etc. just remember: we are all adults.  We should be responsible for our actions.  Some peeps behave like sociopaths and unfortunately you and I have our toys taken away from us.  BUT.  In the long run it is the right decision.  We have to bear in mind that there just aren't the ways and means to police these things.  And honestly, who WANTS to go and help?  Most peeps won't even police their own neighbourhood **it's not MY job etc** So let's not criticise the Authorities, their hands are tied with red tape as regards funding.  By respecting the bans and focusing energy on positively re-inforcing the decision we work with the decision-makers.  I guarantee you that in a year or two this will be as trending as Paris Hilton's broeks (or lack thereof) - the storm will have passed and peeps will make peace with it. 

These decisions are not taken lightly.

 

[FeedingFrenzy]

We are all personally affected by one or other ban.  And that is the crux of the matter: it is personal.  What we should be looking at is how does this enable the meagre resources to be better applied.  not that I'm saying that the meagre resources are well-applied at - in fact I'm not even sure that they are being applied at all.

I was employed as a nature conservator by the provincial nature conservation authority in the Western Cape and had first-hand experience of how meagre those budgets were.  And how quickly the staff become demoralised by constant higher-level in-fighting.  It's easy to point fingers at the guys on the ground but when halfway through your financial year your operating budget is taken away because the money is needed elsewhere - well, what you gonna do?  Get in your own car and go and patrol?  I was told at the time to ask complainants to please come and fetch me so I could perform my duties!  It's no laughing matter.

Before you all get gal-siekte and want to see doom and gloom and bemoan the state of Government etc. just remember: we are all adults.  We should be responsible for our actions.  Some peeps behave like sociopaths and unfortunately you and I have our toys taken away from us.  BUT.  In the long run it is the right decision.  We have to bear in mind that there just aren't the ways and means to police these things.  And honestly, who WANTS to go and help?  Most peeps won't even police their own neighbourhood **it's not MY job etc** So let's not criticise the Authorities, their hands are tied with red tape as regards funding.  By respecting the bans and focusing energy on positively re-inforcing the decision we work with the decision-makers.  I guarantee you that in a year or two this will be as trending as Paris Hilton's broeks (or lack thereof) - the storm will have passed and peeps will make peace with it. 

These decisions are not taken lightly.

 

[Blue Marlon]

This situation is the direct result of a basic human instinct which found deep inside all of us.........GREED. Admittedly some are better at controlling it than others. Here's a scenario to ponder. I have a boat. Boats are expensive to come by and to maintain. I have to have a decent vehicle to tow said boat. I need decent tackle to fish from my boat. Rapalas are expansive right? So I head down to Witsand for a holiday with my boat. I will need accommodation, food, fuel for my boat and vehicle and some cash to entertain the kids. I can afford all this, so I must be well off. I've got a good job or maybe even my own business.........SO WHY DO I NEED 20 COB???? GREED!!!

Now it's the law-makers this and that. It costs the taxpayer money to police something like this and with greedy buggers like me around trying to side step the law, it will take extra effort and recourses from the law makers to do it effectively......resources that they do not have.

I am not happy about this ban. Not by a long shot, so I will show DAFF a thing or two.........At 8:30 I will pack up my tackle from my spot on the river bank and go and fish elsewhere. There you go DAFF. In your face.

 

[Imfeni]

FeedingFrenzy wrote:

And with ridiculous statements like these I am sure you will not stick around for much longer.  The Rape, Pillage and Plunder Society are starting a Forum for all like-minded indicviduals - keep a look-out for it because with your attitude you could be Global Moderator!

The coastal driving ban was effected because of damage to sensitive ecosystems as well the biota therein - African oystercatchers and various other birds nests, turtle nests etc.  There is no such thing as "We have caught Mr A Hole damaging bird nests with his vehicle on the beach and he is BANNED.  The rest of you may continue driving on the beach, please do not do what Mr A Hole did."  Nope.  It is as a result of data accumulated and extrapolated, of potential and cumulative impacts assessed and all the risks identified and realistic, pragmatic management interventions devised.  In this case the only pragmatic management intervention was a TOTAL BAN on beach driving.  Not temprary.  Permanent.  Klaar.  Verby.  Not-negotiable.  And for damn good reasons.

Next - the Breede River.  I do not know if you have ever visited the Breede River estuary.  During holiday season it is swarming with anglers.  Policing that bunch is nightmare.  Now add to the recipe: most probably the second-most important estuary after St Lucia - in terms of biodiversity value and abundance.  Next, add: the most concentrated, accessible population of large dusky cob.  Now for the best bit: add a very large heaped bakkie load of jerks!  This is a special type of jerk - doesn't give a hoot about bag-limits, the size limit, the ecology or any other angler.  Go thank them for the night fishing ban.

Given the miniscule resources available for compliance-testing (nice words for policing!) on the river, the only realistic, pragmatic management intervention left for the Authorities was to impose a total ban on night fishing.  You see Imfeni, it's not about you, it's about conserving representative ecosystems to ensure their continued persistence.  It's not about you in your short life time, it's about enabling ecosystems and their biota to continuously evolve in the ever-changing natural environment.  Without a space and the components to do so there will be nothing in the future.  Your kids and mine will live a miserable life in a poor world.

So please, think before you post reactive knee-jerk statements again.

Feeding Frenzy

Firstly thanks for the attack "All guns blazing" but that is what a forum is all about I am allowed to raze my opinion "Right or Wrong"

I think you are missing the point, I have been fishing for many years and NO I will not be gone, and yes I am also pro conserving our natural recourses, But I am finding it more and more that so called “Greenies” is not doing it for the right reason. Bare with me and I will give you a few examples.

ST HELENABAY

Property Developments has made excess to certain areas almost impossible, and should someone take the time to walk along a stretch of Beach and fish in front of these developments one are quickly told to move as this is private property (BY a Nature Conservation Officer) reason this is private property

Catching fish from the Harbour wall in St Helenabay “Asked for fishing licence by Nature Conservation Officer” passing every single person catching crayfish from harbour wall and I take you bet they do not have a permit (I don’t want to bring colour into this but get my drift) Always targeting the soft target (As they would say the one with the address is the quickest to pay)

SUNDAY RIVER – EASTERN CAPE[/b]

I have been stopped by the same Nature Conservation Officer every single time I take my boat out in order to inspect the same things he has inspected the last time driving past people ignoring no ski and wake zones

As you can see my respect for the so called Nature conservation Officers isn’t very much at this time (Sorry for shooting with a shotgun but that is the new trend)

PEARLY BEACH / UILKRAALSMOND AREA[/b]

The Beach ban has just created a more free and easy access for poachers as when Recreational fisherman where catching on these beaches there was defiantly less poachers around.

COMPITION FISHING[/b]

What makes drivers of these vehicles better drivers than 1000’s of Recreational Anglers that I know that never caused any harm to environment, why can they have the right to drive on the beach and other not.

50% of all Nature Conservation Officers before and after 1994 was and still are corrupt and the biggest poachers of all (The Shotgun approach)

 

[Imfeni]

The law states that I am allowed to catch a certain number of a specie, staying in that law is my right, Why must I go pay R50-00 p/kg to buy fish from some corporate company just enriching themselves where I can go catch my own fry (Most probably costing me more than R50-00 p/kg)

http://www.sealine.co.za/view_topic.php?id=88371&forum_id=1&page=5

Where can a South African go buy Crayfish, It is harvested by the commercials where as 90% is exported just to enrich some BEEE fat cat somewhere along the line.

I as a South African should have the right and access to our resources along as I keep to the law it is my cultural right as Spacedog has put it.

And Tina Joemat Petterson is the biggest crook of them all “This is BULLSHIT” and I cannot believe that nobody tries and stop it and please don’t tell me some Club or Angling Institution tried to fight for the right of Anglers because they only tend to look after themselves.

THIS IS HOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO START TO THINK

“This December I must go out there and catch as many fish as possible as it might be the last time I will be able to do so”

“Why release as it might be the last fish I am allowed to catch”

 

[FeedingFrenzy]

Troll troll troll your boat.

I will not feed trolls. Back under the bridge you go.

 

[Blue Marlon]

Imfeni wrote:

The law states that I am allowed to catch a certain number of a specie, staying in that law is my right, Why must I go pay R50-00 p/kg to buy fish from some corporate company just enriching themselves where I can go catch my own fry (Most probably costing me more than R50-00 p/kg)

http://www.sealine.co.za/view_topic.php?id=88371&forum_id=1&page=5

Where can a South African go buy Crayfish, It is harvested by the commercials where as 90% is exported just to enrich some BEEE fat cat somewhere along the line.

I as a South African should have the right and access to our resources along as I keep to the law it is my cultural right as Spacedog has put it.

And Tina Joemat Petterson is the biggest crook of them all “This is BULLSHIT” and I cannot believe that nobody tries and stop it and please don’t tell me some Club or Angling Institution tried to fight for the right of Anglers because they only tend to look after themselves.

THIS IS HOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO START TO THINK

“This December I must go out there and catch as many fish as possible as it might be the last time I will be able to do so”

“Why release as it might be the last fish I am allowed to catch”

The law now states that you are only allowed to access those resources during the day.......

 

[Imfeni]

FeedingFrenzy wrote:

Troll troll troll your boat.

I will not feed trolls. Back under the bridge you go.

“Fortunately I will not lose my Cool”

Feeding Frenzy I don’t think you are reading or understanding what I am trying to say

I don’t believe the shotgun approach is the right way to go

I believe some Greenies are not involved for the right reason

QUESTION

“Has anyone ever made a study what harm skiing does to behaviour of breeding stock or fish behavour”

 

[Imfeni]

"The law now states that you are only allowed to access those resources during the day......."

And the law sucks.......................

 

[boeta brown]

I beg to differ feeding frenzy! I am employed by my employer to maintain his machines. I get a budget to buy what ever resources I need to competently do my job which I get paid for. If my budget is depleted by mid year causing me to not be able to maintain his machines my employer WILL fire me for incompetence. So the onus is with me to effectively manage my resources to do my job right? In SA nowadays there is a trend that rewards rather than punish incompetence. Just look at Escom and power cuts! It all boils down to the wrong people in charge. What do you think will happen if the person/s in charge actually actively participates in angling? We need officials who actually care about the environment and also enjoy our sport of fishing then these decisions will not be made one-sided only. I DO NOT condone poaching our exploitation of our natural resources in any way and am a firm believer in conservation of said resources for our future generations, but come on! Total banning is NOT the only solution!
The problem: over fishing of cob
Measures in place: permits and bag limits
How is it enforced: Nature conservation officials
Why is it not effective: incompetent management causing officials to not be able to do their job
Solution: appoint new management

 

[Imfeni]

boeta brown wrote:

I beg to differ feeding frenzy! I am employed by my employer to maintain his machines. I get a budget to buy what ever resources I need to competently do my job which I get paid for. If my budget is depleted by mid year causing me to not be able to maintain his machines my employer WILL fire me for incompetence. So the onus is with me to effectively manage my resources to do my job right? In SA nowadays there is a trend that rewards rather than punish incompetence. Just look at Escom and power cuts! It all boils down to the wrong people in charge. What do you think will happen if the person/s in charge actually actively participates in angling? We need officials who actually care about the environment and also enjoy our sport of fishing then these decisions will not be made one-sided only. I DO NOT condone poaching our exploitation of our natural resources in any way and am a firm believer in conservation of said resources for our future generations, but come on! Total banning is NOT the only solution!
The problem: over fishing of cob
Measures in place: permits and bag limits
How is it enforced: Nature conservation officials
Why is it not effective: incompetent management causing officials to not be able to do their job
Solution: appoint new management

 

My point also

“If there is to many accidents on the road during holidays are we now going to ban driving during the holidays”

 

[Marthin]

Boeta... sometimes the resources allocated are simply not enough to do your job... the reason they might not be patrolling is because they simply were not allocated enough fuel for example

Listen i don't doubt mismanagement and uselessnes plays a major role in many state funded organisations.

Off topic but still state departments, for example certain teachers are now taking the education department to court to demand that they get the books, classrooms etc they need to do the job. Certain doctors and nurses have been working overtime for no compensation and had to take their department to court just to get paid some of the money owed to them.

Now if those state departments can leave their employees that actually need to do the job that understaffed, underpaid (not paid at all), underequiped etc, there is nothing that shows me the same can not be true for DAFF... i mean look at the villiage idiot in charge.... if she and the minister of education had to brainstorm, they would struggle to create a ripple in a teacup.

i don't know how or why the breede ban came about. A lot of reasons have been given on the other thread.... but and it's a long shot. Imagine the people that have to do the monitoring on the breede have said we need more money, boats people whatever = 10 apples... But the DAFF grootkoppe said, you can only have 5 apples. But don't despair, we'll ban angling at night which will save you 3 apples so you have to make a plan...

Just saying budget constraints have a major role to play in any service delivery, looking after the resources being one such service, it's not always the useless local guy.

 

[FeedingFrenzy]

OK before this becomes a pointless "he said she said" discussion I will say a few things and then you can shotgun it to sh*t.

Boeta Brown: read correctly "TAKEN away" not stupidly spent because you have no clue. Taken away. Higher powers in the provincial Government decided they needed money for a humnitatrian crisi. Klaar. Don't be an AK47 reader (ready to blast out at every little thing) rather read and under the message. And why the fudge is it a NC officials job to make sure you have not taken more fish than you supposed to have. Kinders wil nie luister nie? Vat hulle toys weg!

Imfeni I have explained the decision-making process. Pointless labelling it as whatever you call it just to provoke. The decision was taken, not lightly, because it is the only way left to restore some order. Jerks being jerks they were always going to find a way to perverse the system. The more perverse the jerk the draconian the laws. love don't cut it when it comes to pervs.

This is a debate which is way past its sell-by date, The bird has flown the nest. Accept it and move on.