Jump to content

Read This!


Recommended Posts

He is not a fishermans asshole :1badmood: he is a bloody greenie looking for glory and something to do with his time other than a :wank: behind a Wollemi Pine :074:

Cheers Swordfisherman


Too true mate, too true. I'm not saying he actually is, just that he shames us all to claim to be. I'd like to send him that "Easy Australian Fishing Quiz" which MrsSwordie posted up - what was that - "0/10"?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest fishrunner

pathetic,. when you can only make yourself look better by downing everyone around you you are a sad case and a looser. they will publish anything :1badmood::1badmood:


Link to comment
Share on other sites

He sounds like an interesting chap really. I just read an abstract from a presentation he made at The Royal Society of NSW

James Woodford is the Environment Writer for the Sydney Morning Herald and the Author of "The Wollemi Pine" and "The Secret Life of Wombats". In his early twenties he won an Australian Geographic Young Adventurer of the Year Award. In 1996 he won the Eureka Prize for environmental journalism and he has been awarded the prestigious Michael Daly Prize for journalism twice.

"James Woodford highlighted a curious accord between Wollemis and wombats (the brief title of his talk)."

Wow, do they both have "woody" bits perhaps........ :074::074:

"A large number of fishermen are like me: they treasure the time in the presence of the marine environment, the spectacular sunsets, the surprise wildlife encounters (BAAAAAAAAAAA OR IS IT A WOMBAT) and the excitement of a child hoping to land a fish."

Cheers mrsswordfisherman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reackon that if he were a fisherman who stayed out on rock platforms that get desecrated, he'd notice that it's often negligent non-fisherpeople who are resonsible for the majority of the mess. I do concede that the fishing line he allegedly saw probably wasn't planted there - it's just from the careless minority of modern-day anglers. He tries to dodge around this fact in the article by saying, "many recreational fishermen are wilful litterers and/or their behaviour is antisocial", then "a large number of fishermen are like me: they treasure the time in the presence of the marine environment, the spectacular sunsets, the surprise wildlife encounters and the excitement of a child hoping to land a fish" what is he trying to say? Which is the majority? I think at least the majority of fishraider members know the answer.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jewel


He mentioned nothing about cleaning up the s#!t that he found as most of us do.

Besides wasnt the Wolemi pine reendangered by tree huggers trapesing in and contaminating the area with their soy inspired flatulence?

Yep, there are some that abuse things, but are they the majority? I think not.

As Fishrunner said, everyones boat.......... dont drill holes, bail and hope the rest join....... if they dont.......they become berley............ but its a boat that you cant skipper alone, there are some worthey crew out there, keep them on board.

EDUCATE DONT CASTIGATE (if you can help it!!!)

We need the numbers, otherwise everyones meat will come on a plastic tray or out of a tin because if you cant see it its not offensive.

Make the effort, clean up the mess if you see it, perpetuate ethics otherwise we will read about the sport in history books (not written by US), none of us are perfect, we all have our offenses (Im trying hard to keep my ciggie butts in the boat) but do your best...... It all helps.


I dont like to lose, do you?

Make you presence felt and do it with class and style, so the greenies/uneducated cant use your conviction against you. Argue from an educated viewpoint or not at all till you can blast them out of the water with FACTS.

Their anecdotes are tiresome, but will fall to factual arguements.

Fly the flag gang and do it with pride.

My rant, my views and Ill stand f#(#ing if Im wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking it was some interesting information unitl i read this paragraph:

I am a South Coast angler - my son and I fish from a favourite wild beach and I hope it remains open after zoning is completed. But there is a reason I fish from the beach and not at the more popular spots on the headlands where my son and I would have a much better chance of filling the freezer. It is because many recreational fishermen are wilful litterers and/or their behaviour is antisocial.

So his interest is in filling the freezer????

He does say later in the article about the joy of fishing with his son, etc (but after the previous comment i had lost interest in his article anyway).

I think the "deposits" in the rock pools and the smashed beer bottles are probably related, but as for the rest????

I'm not a rock fisherman - my choice is by boat & i can't think the number of times i have checked a quick u-turn to pull a plastic bag, bottle, etc out of the water. It's a similar issue. Fisho's are not the only people who use our waterways & shorelines, but when these ares are polluted by vermin, who are the visible ones??? US!!!!!! so we get the blame, even though (as many have said here before me) WE are the ones cleaning up after these &*^%ers!!!!!

Maybe when i have my next collection of rubbish out of the water (my boat is due for the maiden voyage soon!!!!) I'll wrap it & post it to this twit.


That's my 10 cents worth (plus GST)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical fundamentalist greenie tree hugger! The more he gets in everyones faces and stirs the pot the more attention he will get, the more publicity, the more things he will probably achieve. (This worked well for Greenpeace in the late 80's/90's very well.) He is an environmental extremist

I consider myself a bit of a greenie (i think most on this site would too) we respect the environment and take our rubbish with us. Many here pratice catch and release (i do sometimes). So what he is saying is largely a load of rhetoric s#&t, motivated by his ill informed emotions. He's trying to make it seem like the small bad apples are the majority in the rec fishing arena.

I think he should take one for the turtles and see how many plastic bags he can inhale before mulching himself six feet under

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonetheless his article does increase the incentive for us Fishraiders to encourage the other fishermen around us to do the right thing.

It is true that you will often find discarded line/beer bottles and old bait bags at popular fishing spots. I reckon we need to be extra vigilant in ensuring that we both clean up after ourselves and give friendly reminders to other fishermen to do the same - if for no other reason than to starve twits like this 'reporter' of any future ammunition.

I was also interested in the accuracy of his statement that 'most' spots in the BB marine park would remain open to fishing.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such littering and filth shames those of us who bring our stinking bait bags home and dispose of them properly. Unless recreational fishermen clean up their act they have no credibility.

A large number of fishermen are like me: they treasure the time in the presence of the marine environment, the spectacular sunsets, the surprise wildlife encounters and the excitement of a child hoping to land a fish.

It seems that he is pointing the finger at all fishermen, so hes kinda contradicting himself.

Ignorant bastard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

poeple like that make me sick, fair enuf there are anglers out there who do the wrong thing but punishing everyone is not the answer. popular tourist places have the same problem, the only difference is that public servants are there to clean up their mess.

its a sad day when people like that can express such nonsense to the public :mad3::thumbdown:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

forgive me if i sound a bit elitest but whenever i see litter from fisho's its usually in the form of the plastic bags from frozen prawns that are bought at the local servo. as far as i'm concerned these are usually bought by the ocasional fisho that might take the kids for a fish if there is nothing better to do.

fisho's that are commited to their sport are amongst the most enviromentaly concious people i know. They realize the impact that litter has on their sport and are proactive in ensureing the enviroment is left in a state that ensures the future health of the system they fish in.

and if you are one of the mongrels that leave your rubbish behind i hope all your fish are toads and your rods snap on each trip out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest johblow

pathetic,. when you can only make yourself look better by downing everyone around you you are a sad case and a looser. they will publish anything

Spot on.

"A large number of fishermen are like me..."

I didnt know i was a big fat tool ... well, ya learn something new every day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys. Thought you might like this response from Jim Harnwell, editor of "Fishing World" (please see attachment). It was published in today's Daily Telegraph. Speaks on behalf of many of us. I'm glad somebody tried to reverse the effects of the aforementioned article.



Edited by Flattieman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's Jim's full response:

"James Woodford hits the nail on the head when he complains in his opinion piece in Thursday's Herald about the filth and mess left behind by some anglers in various locations along the NSW coast. There are certainly some complete grubs in the recreational fishing fraternity – just as there are in most other sections of society.

While Woodford is justified in his disgust at the mess left behind by these sociopathic morons, merely complaining about the actions of the irresponsible few does little to solve the problem.

It's an unfortunate fact that some people have no concern or regard for the consequences of their actions. Like Woodford, I find it hard to understand how someone can enjoy spending time fishing on some remote headland or deserted beach and then walk off, leaving their litter behind.

There must be some elemental malfunction in the brain processes of these people – and I suggest that this malady affects only a minority – which allows them to act with such bewildering dissimulation.

Regardless of how a few reckless litterbugs choose to behave, this situation is one which the recreational fishing community must act upon. The fishing media has long been warning of the dangers of fouling our own nest, so to speak, and hopefully Woodford's opinion piece will stir up some positive action aimed at cleaning things up.

“Cleaning things up” has literal as well as figurative implications. Instead of invoking horror at the filth left behind by his less enlightened angling brethren, perhaps Woodford could have displayed to his son some pro-active concern and cleaned up some of the garbage himself?

I don't criticise James Woodford for his piece – it's time recreational anglers copped a bit of stick about our lax behaviour in this regard – but you can't take a holier than thou line on this sort of issue. As fishers, it's one in, all in. If people leave garbage behind you either tell them to take it home or, depending on the circumstances (some of these characters have necks redder than the Simpson Desert ), you take their crap home with you.

If you are an avid angler – and James Woodford seemed pretty keen on establishing his credentials in this department – then it seems right and proper to adopt a collective responsibility to sort this issue out. In essence, that means getting your hands dirty and picking up after the grubs who can't – or won't – pick up after themselves.

With luck, Woodford's piece will create debate and discussion of this issue amongst the angling community and we can begin to lift our game.

While I support Woodford in his stance on the littering issue, I think he draws a tenuous bow when he attempts to link the actions of the bad apples in the fishing barrel in with the establishment of marine parks. I doubt any responsible angler has any quibble with the philosophy behind the protection and enhancement of the marine environment – after all, we have much more interest in fish and fishy habitat than the average citizen – but Woodford takes an extremely simplistic and misinformed view on the subject.

Many anglers see the implementation of marine parks in NSW as a fairly cynical pitch by the NSW Government towards garnering Green preferences at the upcoming state election.

Whether you accept this view or not, the Batemans Bay and Port Stephens marine parks are progressing at an amazing rate. Other marine parks in NSW have taken up to two years to formulate, these ones are rushing through in a matter of months. What's the hurry?

Also, James Woodford is being somewhat gullible when he talks about the impact of no-fishing zones and how there'll be plenty of other fishing spots left open. It's true that an average of 20 per cent will be closed off to fishing in marine parks. However, it's not the size of the areas, it's where they are located that needs to be considered. Any marine biologist – or fisherman, for that matter – will tell you that fish only live in certain habitats. It's a bit like people and cities. You have a city where there's lots of people and then large areas in between cities where only very few people live.

In my experience (I was on the advisory committee of the Jervis Bay Marine Park ), sanctuary zones are established primarily on and around the “fish cities”. So you can have a marine park where only 20 per cent is closed off, but in fact 80 per cent of the fishing areas are contained within that 20 per cent.

From a conservation perspective, that simply puts much more pressure on the few areas left open. This is a strange situation which shows the elemental flaws in the current system of marine parks. Why protect some fish and leave others to copy a flogging?

Many in the environment movement seem to ignore this dilemma, saying that the closed areas create a “spill-over” effect where the fish in the sanctuary zones get bigger and more numerous and then move out to other areas, thus creating a bonanza for anglers.

This sounds great, but it's not really kosher. According to Hilary Sullivan, director, Marine Protected Areas Management Section, Marine Division, federal Department of the Environment and Heritage: “The question of the effects of sanctuary zones within marine parks and the spill-over effect to non-sanctuary zones of both sedentary and non-sedentary fish life is one that is receiving increasing levels of scientific research. There is no consensus view on the results at this stage.”

“No consensus view”. Yet this spill-over benefit is being propagated by proponents of marine parks – the NSW Government has been extremely vocal on this issue - as being the best news since sliced bread for recreational anglers. It's been widely reported as being fair dinkum, yet it seems the boffins haven't actually decided if it works or not. Is this a ploy to try and sweet talk anglers into accepting marine parks?

No thinking angler can disagree with the fact that we need to protect our marine environments. However, you can achieve this by other means than locking people out. Marine parks in NSW have as a primary goal the preservation of habitat. In some areas this may require total bans on fishing, but in other areas I'd argue that management strategies don't need to be so draconian. The banning certain types of fishing methods can achieve the same result as complete bans, in some cases. For example, you may allow only trolling (a moving boat towing a bait or lure on or near the surface) in areas where reef habitat and demersal species (fish that live near the bottom) need to be protected. This sort of compromise would mollify many recreational anglers, while achieving conservation goals.

Yet the Greens won't have a bar of it – I guess you'd have to ask them why - and the NSW Government is resisting that sort of management strategy because, well, it's hard to manage. It easier to kick everyone out than it is to enforce particular methods of fishing.

While there's much discussion of the alleged benefits of marine parks, there doesn't seem to be much attention paid to the fact that recreational fishing results in bigger and more fish. Sounds crazy, I know, but results from surveys done in the recreational fishing havens – created by the removal of commercial fishing effort and paid for by the recreational fishing licence – show exactly that. More fish and bigger ones since the removal of the commercial nets. I'll spell it out even more clearly: Places where only recreational fishing is allowed mean there are more and bigger fish that there were before. This information was released by NSW Fisheries last year yet got no attention in the mainstream press. I didn't note any press releases from the Wilderness Society or the National Parks Association heralding this information as a positive for the environment and clapping the good old anglers on the back.

Oddly enough, I also can't recall James Woodford, a self-confessed keen angler and the main environment writer for the Herald, commenting or reporting on this quite interesting material.

Woodford's article in Thursday's Herald certainly raised some valid points and exposed flaws in the culture of recreational fishing. The article also highlighted how poorly fisheries matters get reported in the mainstream press.

Woodford's comments on the garbage issue are but one side of the story. As someone who's obviously interested in fishing and fish stocks, I would have thought James Woodford could have made comment on the fact that more than 72 tonnes of striped marlin have been taken by commercial operators along the east coast in the past three months. More than 20 tonnes of marlin have been taken from James Woodford's home waters on the NSW Far South Coast . Government quite freely admits it has no idea how many striped marlin there are off NSW, yet 72 tonnes have been ripped out of the water, cut up and sent to either Japan or the Sydney Fish Markets. Worse, no one knows how many protected blue and black marlin have been caught and discarded as “by-catch” of the striped marlin fishery. Since commercial operators commonly shoot the marlin with high-powered rifles to avoid prolonged boatside battles, these “protected” marlin – which are supposed to be released unharmed – often don't survive the release procedure.

Marlin are the top predators in the marine food chain – they're the lions and tigers of the oceanic habitat - yet no-one in the conservation movement or in the mainstream press has shown any interest in the plight of these magnificent beasts. Perhaps they're all too busy munching down on marlin steaks at their favourite inner city restaurant …

It's easy to blame recreational fishermen for being dirty, red-necked codgers who catch too many fish and don't care about the environment. No one in the mass media ever comments on the plethora of rules and regulations governing fish sizes and limits. Or how recreational anglers are actually pushing for tighter controls in order to protect fish stocks. No one in the mass media ever comes out with ideas on developing more pro-active recreational fisheries management ideas and plans. No-one in the media comments on the vast importance of the recreational fishing industry to regional economies, or how studies have shown that kids who get involved in fishing are much less likely to use drugs or get into trouble with the law than those who don have the opportunity to fish.

All that happens when someone finally decides to write about recreational fishing is that we all get labelled as disgusting grubs – which, admittedly, in a minority of cases is perfectly true.

Unfortunately, the real story, as often happens in fishing, got clean away."


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...