Grantm

Its actually pretty straight forward from memory. Just remove the bolts that attach it to the leg, plus any connecting hoses and wiring and it will just lift off. The drive shaft is not physically connected to the motor end and easily seperates when you lift the block. Be warned you may snap some bolts if they are corroded which will need repairing. Dont panic if that happens cause its also pretty easy to get them out if snapped. Its been a loooong while since ive done one but i think thats it !

I agree with Mottyman, No player is above the rules even Johns. Threatening to go O/S if things dont go his way is testament to his larger than life attitude. Great player but not above the law and should be dealt without prejudice. If I was a Newcastle fan I would have the mega shits with him for being so stupid and possibly costing my team its shot. He has a big responsibility to his fans and his team and needs to act accordingly. People pay big money just to watch him play and have now been dudded through his own stupidity. Bad call or not you play the whistle and Johns has been around long enough to know a ref never changes his mind. He should be fined by his club too. Ok the bad call cost them the game perhaps, but his outburst cost them their premiership shot. Yes, he is the one who got them there but he has been payed megabucks to do it. For a player of his experience he sure doesnt show it when when things dont go his way. A true champion or leader would not have put his team in this position. Just my take.

Sounds like an intersting day Shane. The Libs are certainly area trying to get in thier. Their message that they will cease and re-evaluate the parks is an intersting one. They were saying the same thing at the Central Coast rally a while back. They specifically say they will wait for proper science to be brought forward before anything else is done. That is good but what does that mean ? I just hope its not a political tactic and is a genuine claim. I like thier stance on the commercial buy outs too. Good to see the locals come out in support. Its always a pity when some morons decide to make a mockery out of the open floor - happens every time. Their message is a hell of a lot better than the alternative !!

Welcome mate ! Im a Lake mac fisho too hope to see you out there !

I think Billfishers on the money with the poly's. I ve not heard anything like cracking hulls etc. They may not be the prettiest thing around but geez you avoid a lot of problems the tinnies and glass boats have. There not for eveyone but they do seem pretty good. As for a test run at the boat show. Your kidding right ? That would be a logistical nightmare with the amount of people going through plus there is no easy access for this to be done. Just to hard. Most big dealers have test drive days.

Nothing wrong with that logic. Just be carefull not to underpower you boat cause you will regret it regardless of the cost saving.

Hey mate ! Whats wrong with the Johno ? why are you going to replace it ? If you do how come you dropping so many horses, 115 might be underdone perhaps. There you go, all ive done is ask more questions than give answers. I'm fairly usefull arent I !! edit - i carnt spel

Yeah i would ! dont know if you can get one small enough though! Honestly as long as its new it should be fine on a 4.2. Performance is not always as big a consideration on small tinnies. If I was to choose between the brands you mentioned it would be Johnson though. I dont think The Millenium hull is part of the 4.2 meter range of boats, I think they start at 4.8 meters.

Gday Caine, Mate both boats are manufactured by the same company Tellwater, and there is little or no difference in build quality. Both a top quality tinnies. Go for what best suits your needs as their may be some very slight differences. The Stacer should be a bit cheaper and a painted hull on a boat that size should only be $400.00 dearer max ! The painted hull is a nice touch but painted tinnies do bubble through electrolysis so you gotta wash them thoroughly and that takes extra work. Its only advantage is a visual one really. Maybe spend the money on a better motor if the budgets tight. If you want the good oil on the Stacer talk to Huetts at Cowan. Cheers

Thank Bob, Just to make it a bit easier here is the link. FFC FORUM Just remember to keep it cool and refrain from abusive posts. That certainly doesnt help our cause. Actually I forgot to mention that Bob Smith and The Fishing Party have been representing rec fisho's for a long time. Unlike $%^&* they are a polital party which can be voted for,,and in a show of the solidarity we are all talking about, have worked together with $%^&* to better help our cause. Sorry I forgot to mention it Bob. Cheers. BTW keep the posts coming with your thoughts Raiders. No matter how small. Do you support $%^&* ? The Fishing Party ? Commercial fishing or whatever lets here them ! Dont let it slide

Thanks Shane, thats what i was after. Thanks to Bob Smith too for a great post. An interesting point in regards to the problem being moreso with licencing and practices rather than the fisherman. I agree with that. Its the government responsibilty to get this right. Im happy that there is at least some acknowledgement that things could be better and its not all roses in the commercial sector. Perhaps it is what the acceptable level of these practices are that is the sticking point for me. As for keeping things in house that fine for $%^&* no probs. This however is a public fishing forum for rec fisho's. This is our house. If I could convince the wife to have 2000 Fishraiders over for a BBQ to discuss it I would ! Thats not going to happen so we need to do it here. Discussing these issues to me is more likely to bring us closer together other than what is currently the case where only a couple of people ever have an input. Lets talk. I just feel that if we have any group out thier saying they are OUR voice that we should get all the info and I will continue to probe. Their is another group called the FFC who also claim to be representing rec fishos but who strongly support marine parks. Im over their too posting like crazy trying to find out more and posting my thoughts. I openly question their philosyphy although sweep is a passionate inteligent bloke whos opinion i respect, just dont agree with, and cant see them suppoting my philosyphy. To me $%^&* truly have the best interest of rec fisho's in hand but i simply have a different view on commercials. It is important however that we all post our thought on all these issues so groups like $%^&* can best represent us. Apathy has been a problem in the past. If I do nothing else at Fishraider I will continue to keep the marine park and other important issues moving as a lack of interest and input could cause a split in the ranks as mentioned by Gibbofisho. I think we are united and strong but with some minor differences. I cant simply forget about the commercial issues and will keep them hot too. I accept $%^&* position and wont refer to them in regards to any further commercial fishing posts now i know where there at. I URGE ALL FISHRAIDERS ( AND MEMBERS OF OTHER SITES ) TO POST A COMMENT NO MATTER HOW SMALL TO SHOW YOUR SUPPORT, DISSAPPROVAL, OR ANY OTHER COMMENT YOU WANT IN REGARDS TO THESE ISSUES. PLEASE AT LEAST SHOW YOU CARE BY A SIMPLE POST. THIS THREAD SHOULD BE 10 PAGES LONG. Marine Parks wont beat us - apathy will. CHEERS

Hi all, Thought id start another topic in regards to the confusing issues we as rec fisho's face. Not looking for drama just open discussion. It seems pretty evident that there are differing opinions on what we should do and who we should support. Ignoring this fact and going ahead blindly is not a terrific way to go either so lets look at it. What issues do we face ? Here are my thoughts MARINE PARKS : Argueably the hottest and most important issue. Most fisho's totally oppose the current sanctuary zoning and believe they are fueled by politically motivated reasons. The extemest have jumped on board and are just totally anti fishing. They claim to improve our fishery and protect biodivirstiy but this is vigorously opposed by many through a lack of supporting evidence for the parks. COMMERCIAL FISHING : The sustainability of this practice is questioned by many. The practices of netting are damaging and potentially unrepairable. They do supply a percentage of local seafood and are a local industry supported by the government. The viability of the industry in questionable. RECREATIONAL FISHING : Bag limits are under question, are they tight enough ? Do we need slot limits, no anchor zones, closed seasons for spawning. BLACK MARKET AND LAWBREAKERS : RFH's have fuelled a new breed of black market netters taking advantage of the areas. Are commercials acurately reporting their catch ? Poachers ? FISHERIES : Is their enough resorces here. It is said that to police a marine park is the equivelent of funding hundreds of fisheries officers. Where do we go with all this stuff ? Well like many have said we have to face some facts. Perhaps a coastline free of commercials is totally unrealistic - great idea - but unrealistic. Closing down an entire industry is unlikely and not supported by either State Governenment. Trying to remove them completely may be a loosing battle but worth trying to reduce to a reasonable level as a comprimise. Its impotant that you support anyone who fights on your behalf and who you believe in speaking in the best interest of you. You need to listen to all sides and not be swayed by (buzz word) emotional rhetoric. Listen to what the pro marine park people are saying, listen to their side of the story and make you own mind up. Dont be swayed by me or anyone here and do whats best for you. I would love to see revised bag limits on some species as well as slot limits for fish like flathead and Bream. No anchor zones and closed saeasons dont even worry me. Fisheries officers need to grow to controll the illegal activity we face and if they can fund a marine park they can fund more of these guys. Marine parks in general. No problem if all sides agree they are needed. I believe the scientics need some untouched areas to study and use a benchkmark but think they should be in remote areas and away from the popular fishing ground and local communities. Personally i am struggling with the following. $%^&* who I do support moslty have seemingly decided that it is best to fight the park issue on a united front with the commercial sector. Perhaps splitting from them would appear selfish and foolhardy as the arguement is that the parks are not needed because no evidence fully supports their implementation. Because I dont believe that the commercial sector is really that viable and that their practices are damaging and depleting it has left me in two minds. Do i support this group and go against my belief on comm fishing and if so how many other people out their think the way i do ! I dont know many rec fisho's that support and have no problem with commercials. Id say the vast majority do have an issue. Im frustrated when fact come out that suggest commercial fishing at its current levels are fine when the Hawkesbury and Pittwater are stuffed to name a couple. What happens if we win and the parks dont come in. Do we then turn on the pro's as the next course of action pretending we now dissagree with their practice ? Im yet to see anything that I as an average rec fisho who is happy to comprimise on most things, can see working. Im sorry if the commercial fisho thing has caused a ripple but i cant accept that they are doing no harm and wish their was a group that opposed the parks as well as $%^&* does, but had a firm policy on commercial buyouts so the parks could be stopped and commercial fishing reduced as well. My ideal scenario Remote marine parks in small areas for study and reseach or in areas of endangered species. Backed up by proper reseach of course. Reduced bag limits and slot size limits. No anchor zones over sensative areas. Closed seasons only if required. Commercial fishing methods modified to a less damaging practice, overall numbers reduces and high hit metro areas like Hawkesbury to have at least half the licences bought out. I can accept some levels of commercials. More way offshore activity which doesnt affect the majority of fisho's even the Game guys to top up the lost fish stocks from buyouts. Im happy to comprimise on everything but just cant accept the view that our fisheries are not under any threat cause i think thats bullshit regardless of the figures. Id love to hear what you fisho's think and see how we can come together completely on this Cheers EDIT I didnt post this to cause any drama of take away from $%^&* efforts who ive mentioned. Id love a rep to post on behalf of them to help clarify some of these things. Bob Smiths input would also be good. If your feelings towards the parks are stronger than anything else I urge you to get your backside to Newcaslte with Shane and show your support !

That is a pretty poor comment. Who has said that or said they want the water to themselves ? Your posts so far have only wound things up Gibbo and added nothing constructive which is ashame cause you have very valid info mostly. I have in this thread indicated on multipul occasions that I DO NOT wish to deprive any one of fresh seafood. I have also suggested this through various other threads in the past and indicated comprimise must be made, but clearly a couple of you guys are only reading into my posts what you want. Saying 'get the pro's out' is no different Than saying 'no marine parks'. There is comprimise in that, and that is what im saying. A reduction in pro activity is needed ( in my opinion )as is a revised format for marine parks. I CANT SAY IT ANY SIMPLER. Has removing the pro's from our biggest harbour through the Dioxin problem, that being Sydney Harbour, and also Botany Bay being made an RFH had any significant impact of seafood price or availablity to the locals ? Iam happy to pursue the marine park issue on its merits without looking at the commercial issue. I was simply making a point about the pro's. One last time I do not support the current marine park sanctuary zoning I do not agree that commercial activity is acceptable at its current level I do agree that EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO FRESH SEAFOOD and that a reduction in commercials wont affect that too much but would improve the state of our fisheries. Anyway im opting out of this thread as clearly my opinions are being twisted into something they are not. I am happy to discuss anything and offer opinions ( one of the few ) but I would appreciate those opinions being accepted. Hopefully others reading my posts can tell what im on about. . Cheers

You can read all the studies you like, listen to all the fact and figures touted around, and you can even keep saying people 'have the right to seafood' But what inhlanzi has reported is the experiences of somehone who is actually on the river seeing whats happening in real life. Once again (sighs) i dont really think people are trying to deny anyone the right to seafood. It just needs to be done in a responsible and sustainble way and done in areas less popluated like the main Sydney ones which support a rec and boating industry worth a shit load more than the pro fishing industry. Just because people have the right to seafood does not give the pro's the right to take all the fish ! I think what people are saying is that perhaps if the pro's had not done the damage that they have, then we would not be facing such widespread marine park proposals. The empty nets paper which was a huge shot in the arm to the greenies for the parks, is about the lack of fish and not bio diversity. Yes we want to oppose the parks but it is the pro's who in my opinion damaged and depleted the ocean to a level which has prompted this shit fight. Ok the greens would always push for parks regardless but commercial activity has certainly been a huge catalyst for the wide spread nature of them we now face. Anyone who thinks the Hawkesbury is sustainably and responsible fished by pro's and reckons the fish stocks are ok needs to look again. Yes a good angler can catch a decent fish but that doesnt make it right.

Hmmm.... Like it I do !

Ahh ok, well that now makes sense. Fishing the Hawkesbury does give you a different perspective on things. Im not suprised your concerns arent the pro's if youve not lived with their destruction. So i suppose its all been worth it just to know that. Yes it is a bit confusing with your usename Ecofisher.

Geez sorry peoples didnt mean to cause a shitfight. I dont actually think its opposition with the ranks either. Rec fisherman come from a wide range of backgrounds and beliefs, and there are bound to be differences of opinion but still be on the same side. I dont think I or anyone else has made out to be on a different side, so no offence but i dont see that statement making much sense. In fact it just blows things out of proportion. Sorry Gibbo no offence intended mate i do agree with most of what you say. This is where these debates go sour though. It needs to be accepted that people on the same side can have different views on some items. Like mine ( and others ) in regards to pro fishing. It does not man we are on a different page of the marine park issue. When ever some one offers a differing view it is seen as a split when in fact its not. Its important that we ( rec fisho's ) listen to eachother and respect eachother differing opinions. I have no problem with the $%^&* group and like i said support their sentiments but just dissagree on the pro fishing stuff. The marine park issues and the professional fishing issues are wide spread and complex and will require some from of comprimise. Yes i want the pro's gone but i would comprimise to get a better than now solution. So, I still see that everyone who has posted here is on the same side regardless of the comments made. Im not at all offened by Ecofisher and Billfish or anyone else. I love the openness of the discussion and feel its important. I dont think they have a problem either and respect my views. Yes we have some differences on the pro's and that needs to be discussed but I still say WE ARE UNITED on the MARINE PARK ISSUE and agree that the current sanctuary zones are unacceptable and need to be challanged. I applaud $%^&* for their efforts in that area. There is no split and no rec fisho i know agrees with the current zoneing proposal. Lets keep moving forward and openly discuss our differences while knowing we are together as recreational fisherpeople !

Mate I know we are all on the same side, im just trying to voice the fact the we all dont share the exact same views. Surely im allowed to oppose the pro's if i want without feeling like im going against the grain. Im certainly not alone in my opinion. Look back though my posts and you will see i am always offering a different perspective and asking questions no one else does. Although i struggle to support a group that supports the pro's - I do. I have posted on the site and have been there for a while. Dont get me wrong $%^&* are doing a good job in offering an alternative view and im wrapped that a group is out their fighting, i just havent seen anything other than anti marine park views with no comprimise. Thats the way ive read it anyway. Ive gone away from an $%^&* meeting thinking geez these guys hate marine parks dont they. Its just the impression that i get. Ill go searching for $%^&* alternative outcomes and see what i find. Maybe im just reading it wrong. I just refuse to go with the flow and like to form my own opinion after looking at everything. Like ive said i dont support the current format but wish to remain open minded. Is it really us against them ? Im sure there are plenty of people somewhere in the middle. Your forum name is Ecofisher. What is your association with them ? No need to be shy here !

Yeah righto ! Going back to my original comment where i said i'd like to see 'the pro's gone from inshore waterways', was only spawned from the paper that was used to respond to the 'empty nets' propanda, where it says that commercial practices were destructive. Cant blame me for agreeing with that after all its this rebutle paper that everyone is supporting. You cant just pick bits and pieces from it and ignore the rest. I think you me and Billfisher agree that everyone has a right to seafood so please dont think I oppose this. The fact that NSW has the highest catch rate really doesnt suprise me Billfisher. Its not hard to see we get hit the hardest hence my opposition. That fact does not mean that it is sold at the local markets and that too is my problem. Why have the highest catch rates only to export it. Do you really support that ? Im sure anyone who fishers places like the Hawkesbury will agree that the pro's affect these areas badly. I just have trouble supporting a group that supports commercial fishing in our rivers who ive always opposed. That is simply my point. Maybe now is not the best time to deal with this but when will be? Perhaps $%^&* should put forward what they believe is fair with the park issue. I have only ever seen total opposition to the concept and nothing else. If this is not true please show me the link or info cause i must have missed it. Appologies if thats the case. Please understand I do totally dissagree with the sanctuary areas zoned from the maps ive seen and feel they are way over the top. I also dissagree with the reasoning behind them and feel they are politcally motivated. Just though id point that out so you dont think im 'pro park' cause im not. I dont want to loose my fishing spots either. I just like to look at things from all angles and keep things in perspective. Cheers

I reckon the DOA Shrimp are the pick of the prawn lures. The Gulp PRAWN is nowhere i reckon. Just looks like a lump of rubber with no action.

Maybe not realistic but certainly a popular opinion. Totally opposing the parks does not seem to be a realistic approach either but we do it because we believe its the right thing to do. I agree that the public have the right to a feed of fresh fish and if you had seen some of my previous posts on this forum I have said just that, in fact i have been quite vocal about it. I am certainly not suggesting anyone should be deprived and I dont believe buying out pro's who net these areas will do this. From what i understand the vast majority of fish purchased at the fish markets by the public IS NOT taken in our local estuaries and rivers anyway, and is imported or caught offshore. Turning rivers like the Hawkesbury and Pittwater into pro' free zones will not impact on whether people can buy a feed of fish. There is nothing wrong with wanting our coastal rivers to be free of commercial activity not just from a fish stock persprective, but also from the damage done by their netting methods. Anyone who supports giant nets being hauled through the shallows and weed beds is a certified mental patient in my opinion. Remember the weed problem ? Sit in the Hawkesbury during the week and watch these blokes go back and forth up the river. Its not nice especially when they dump thier bycatch on Patonga beach. Its just wrong. I agree thier is a place for sustainable commercial activity, but in moderation and preferably offshore or in remote access areas away from heavy rec areas. I stand by my comment that commercial activity should be wound up in rivers and estuaries. Im sure not everyone agrees but its just my opinion to which im entitled. $%^&* is probably one group who maybe dissagrees which is fine, but its a point of contention for me. They are also trying to represent fishers as a whole and not just the rec sector which i can accept. Is trying to stop the MARINE PARK INVASION ( which i dont like either ) any more unrealistic than my comments about stopping the pro's in the rivers. Buying out the pro's is a phylosiphy that has already been supported by the Government and does actually happen, so yes i do think its a realistic hope. Cheers

I just wish the manufacturers represented their products and did not leave it to the dealers. There were far too many old stock boats there for my liking and not enough new model stuff. None of the boats i wanted to see were there but plenty of old stuff was. Seems some of the dealers were just clearing out the yards. Bit rich for a 17 doller entry fee. If you went there to just find a bargain boat it may have been ok but i went hoping to see new stuff. Sorry you had a rough time with the Webster mate.

A couple of interesting points. The paper does not seem to disagree with MPA's but moreso the amount of protection being sought. I think we need to appreciate that there will be parks put in no matter what and its the amount of sanctuary zones that are the concern. Commercial fishing practices were singles out as destructive. I wish $%^&* were more supportive of getting the pro's removed from inshore waterways. No offence $%^&* but i would love to see the pro's GONE !

Damn ! Thats the most interesting 1st post ive ever seen ! Welcome mate ! This has been a great thread and a very informative one. Tohatsu should read it and take note.

Thats an interesting thread Ben ! Like the way it goes sour with personall attacks. I think to be fair it needs to be noted that when you say Suzuki do the lightest 140hp engine that neither Etec, Yamaha or Mercury produce a 140 hp engine. Comparing apples with apples the Suzi 150hp comes in at 215kg and the etec is 195kg as is Yamaha and Mercury approx. This is just what i found on the net. The guist of that artical suggests to me that there is very little between these motors overall with etec beating suzi in some areas and vice versa. They are both pretty damn good. The comparison does in fact state the ETEC was the fastest overall though and the sound comparision was negligable. After owning a 50 etec and a 60 johno 4 st ( Suzi 4 st ) I can say this. The Johno/suzi is quiter and smoother. No doubt. Is it to the point that it reallt matters ? No Id have to say the Johno/Suzi is better on fuel but not by a lot, in fact it wouldnt be a deciding factor from a sale perspective. The ETEC did seem to have a better hole shot to me although the motors were on different boat but the Johno/ Suzi is s bit bigger and the boat a bit heavier. End of the day they are both superb motors in their own right and blow the Honda's and Mercs away. BPP do a pretty good job convincing people ETEC win every erea of comparison but you gotta take it with a grain of salt. To say they are quieter ( which they do ) is simply not true on my motors anyway, as an example. As for service cost ther is no doubt that etec is cheaper. No schedule service for three years it claims. Well, lets assume that you still do a water pump and fuel filter during this time. Thats it then. The 4 strokes have to have a yearly service plus the water pump and fuel filter. There is just no way any 4 stroke is cheaper to service than an ETEC. What would one expect to spend on a 140hp Suzi 4 stoke over 3 years, lets have a look ? Like i said both great motors - just different. Cheers