police on the bay

[kamarshark]

A two-day multi-agency operation targeting drug and other illegal activity on commercial and recreational fishing vessels in the Moreton Bay region finished yesterday. Operation Juliet Osprey covered a sea zone stretching 100 nautical miles north and south and, out to the 200 nautical mile limit from the Scarborough Harbour.

Operation Juliet Osprey was a joint operation between the Queensland Police, Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, Australian Federal Police, Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Australian Crime Commission.

The third phase of the multi-agency operation began on Tuesday in the Scarborough Harbour and the greater Moreton Bay area targeting illegal activity such as drug trafficking and possession, firearms and weapons act offences, being in charge of vessel whilst under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and compliance and enforcement of maritime regulations.

Multi-agency boarding teams consisting of members of the QPS and Customs and Border Protection boarded and searched a total of 58 commercial fishing and recreational vessels during the two day operation resulting in five people being charged with nine offences relating to drugs and firearm charges.

Some of those charged by police during the two days of the Operation include:

· a 57-year-old Surfers Paradise man charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. He is due to appear in the Redcliffe Magistrates Court on September 19;

· a 43-year-old Redcliffe man charged with possession of a dangerous drug. He is due in the Redcliffe Magistrates Court on September 28;

· a 29-year-old Kallangur man charged with seven offences including possession of a dangerous drug, possession of a utensil and unlicensed driving. He is due to appear in the Redcliffe Magistrates Court on September 26;

· a 43-year-old Woody Point man and a 33-year-old Newport woman who were both charged with possession of a dangerous drug. They are due to appear in the Redcliffe Magistrates Court on October 3.

Police also issued a number of Maritime Infringement Notices for marine and fisheries related matters.

Traffic enforcement was also conducted at boat ramps from Clontarf to Donnybrook and Bribie Island over the two days resulting in 631 roadside breath tests, 15 roadside drug tests, 18 Traffic Infringement Notices, and three Notices to Appear for drink driving and disqualified driving matters. At least one driver returned a positive drug swab and a sample taken from the driver has been sent for further analysis.

Approximately 94 personnel, including officers from the Water Police, uniformed police Customs and Border Protection drug detection dog teams took part in the operation.

Senior Sergeant Ross Simpson, Redcliffe District Crime Manager, said it was a well coordinated and highly successful multi-agency operation.

“In the past two days we brought together assets and personnel from five federal and state agencies in a coordinated approach. Apart from the arrests made, we have secured a significant amount of intelligence that will be developed and will form the basis for future operations.

“The professionalism displayed by personnel from all agencies in both the planning and operational phases is to be commended and helped ensured the success of the operation,†Senior Sergeant Simpson said.

[Guest]

Thanks for the update

Cheers

Darren

[ellicat]

I wonder what the dangerous drugs were. Viagra perhaps ?

[Gad]

Thanks for the update bro, i will let the ''brothers'' from NZ know to come by plane today and not by boat

Cheers

Darren

TOOO late .. they caught earlier flights and have already given samples in a plastic cup :ohmy: but the real heat "of show and tell" will be on them at the "Cauldron" tonight :evil:

[Carter]

All that work and money for 5 arrests, What a Joke.

[Ricko69]

For a 2 day operation that covered such a big area and the number of people that would have been checked the few convictions recorded points to the fact that most people using the waterways are doing the right thing. A good result for comercial and rec fisho's I recon. If they had covered the same area of road with that intencity the result would have been a lot different I would suspect.

[Guest]

Thanks for the update bro, i will let the ''brothers'' from NZ know to come by plane today and not by boat

Cheers

Darren

TOOO late .. they caught earlier flights and have already given samples in a plastic cup :ohmy: but the real heat "of show and tell" will be on them at the "Cauldron" tonight :evil:

[Freshy]

It is impossible to measure how successful presence is when assessing such a large scale operation...

How many offences have been deterred. It is not measurable.

Neve measure a operations success by the amount of arrests made.

The test will be where the intel leads them.

Money well spent.

Freshy

[woody1]

I wonder how many arrests they would have made if anchoring too close, motoring through a school of fish and hogging the ramp were illegal

[Ricko69]

Alot more than 5

[bootyinblue]

What is the measure of success and value for money? No offences detected and no lives lost of people you may well know, or 1000 offences detected and 100 deaths investigated in a tIofly manner?

Which one would you prefer?

[Bagless]

My father in law was stopped on the bay last week and had his boat checked, they found his life jackets no longer met current standards and was fined $200!! :ohmy: Also told him off on all sorts of other safety matters such as not having flares in spite of him never going beyond peel island. Sounded like the police handled it rather poorly, think it's a bit harsh when you get a $200 fine for an innocent mistake. Apparently felt like they were going to get him for something no matter how petty. What a poor use of time and resources.

[Freshy]

Mate safety is paramount, even more so on the water.

If the boat goes down there is no where to hide!!!

[Gad]

My father in law was stopped on the bay last week and had his boat checked, they found his life jackets no longer met current standards and was fined $200!! :ohmy: Also told him off on all sorts of other safety matters such as not having flares in spite of him never going beyond peel island. Sounded like the police handled it rather poorly, think it's a bit harsh when you get a $200 fine for an innocent mistake. Apparently felt like they were going to get him for something no matter how petty. What a poor use of time and resources.

May be the non compliance fine was for the condition of the life jackets????

The old Australian standards for PFD type 1, 2 and 3 - AS 1512 - 1996, AS 1499 - 1996 and AS 2260 – 1996 are still allowed to be used as per below and this fact is also stated in the new 2011 – 2012 QLD Recreational Boating and Fishing Guide

Taken from Maritime Safety Qld site under Safety tab

Marine Information Bulletin — Lifejackets and PFDs –, updated February 2011

Q. I have been told there are new standards for PFDs. What’s going on?

A. Australian Standards published AS 4758 Personal flotation devices in 2008.

This standard will eventually replace the old Australian standards for PFD type 1, 2 and 3

– AS 1512 - 1996, AS 1499 - 1996 and AS 2260 - 1996.

Jackets made to the old standards are still available for purchase. As manufacturers gear up for their new products jackets made to the new standard will appear on retail shelves.

This new standard, AS 4758, has been accepted for use in Queensland since 1 February 2010.

Q. Do I need to upgrade?

A. PFDs made to the old standards will be acceptable for use into the foreseeable future.

If you purchase a jacket made to an old standard now and look after it you can expect

many years of service.

A date may be set for eventual retirement of the old standards. This will be a national decision and Maritime Safety Queensland will ensure that Queensland stakeholders are advised.

Q. What standards are acceptable for PFDs in Queensland?

A. Listed in appendix 2 in their categories are the standards for lifejackets and PFDs accepted

under the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Regulation 2004 for use in Queensland and international standards accepted as satisfactory alternative standards

for use in Queensland.

Compliance

Q. How do I know that a PFD complies with the appropriate standard?

A. For a PFD to comply with a particular standard certain information required under that standard must be displayed. Listed in appendix 3 are the markings found on PFDs according to the various standards. These markings are used to identify the standard used for manufacture and if that standard is appropriate. Jackets not marked with all the information required by the particular standard do not comply with the standard and

are not acceptable for use.

Non compliant jackets are not fit for the purpose for which they have been sold

Q. My jacket is a bit old and a bit faded. Is it OK?

A. The condition of a PFD may affect compliance. If a jacket shows signs of deterioration such as stiff or cracked fabric, colour fading or pulled stitching it will be considered non compliant and attract a fine.

[Bagless]

Don't get me wrong, my father in law was certainly in the wrong but I think the police could have handled it better. Given him a warning or an ultimatum to revise his safety gear and present it at the local police station. A $200 fine and treating him like a child serves no benefit to anyone. Yes safety is paramount on the water and yes there are idiots out there will take liberties, but choose your battles and treat people with decency.

Also worth noting, I'm not anti police, far from it. They are invaluable to society and I appreciate their job is far from easy. I'm also not referring to this recent crack down as being a waste of time and resources, just commenting on this incident with my father in law.

[Gad]

yea, sometimes these things can happen after a long day of repetition.

where you on the boat with him when this happened

[tugger]

Nobody likes getting fines but you can't expect the water police to just issue warnings its like traffic offences if they just give warnings all the time who would keep up there seasworthyness. Its up to each skipper to know all the rules and keep there boat and crew safe

[Bagless]

True (to some extent), but seems so silly that the $200 fine could have been used to purchase new life jackets. I wasn't there when it happened but to give you some background about my father in law. He goes out in his boat purely to be out on the water, not to fish or crab or any other purpose. He never goes out into open water. His boat gets serviced every year and he pays his registration when it's due. His boat is sturdy and can't go faster than 5knots with a tale wind. He got his boat license when it became mandatory and was carrying it when he was inspected. He had all the necessary safety gear, however his life jackets, while functional, didn't meet current standards. So he gets a $200 fine for something he thought he was doing right. Yes he was infact wrong and no doubt there are good reasons to have enforced safety standards. But lets be honest how often to you read about the consequences of having functional and yet not 'to standard' equipment. Anyway I'll say no more about it, but as Gad says I think the long day of repition might have got the better (or worse) of someone on this occasion. And no he wasn't mouthing off to the officers and this is the kind of person who will lose sleep over this.