DPI & F info and assistance required

[Lucky_Phill]

I know some of you are sceptical about giving info to the DPI&F and in particular where that information ends up. This survey / project will assist the fisheries in their research of our fish stocks as explained below. If you wish to participate, good, if not, that's also not a problem, but please have a read and if there are any questions, you can direct them to Jonathan via his email address.

Cheers Phill

First, by way of introduction, the team I work for in the DPI&F collects important information to help assess the status of a number of fish stocks throughout the state. It has been running since 1999 and we work closely with other teams in the DPI&F, such as those that:
· collect recreational catch and effort information from fishers filling out diaries or at boat ramps
· collect commercial catch and effort information using logbooks
· monitor commercial fishing operations using on-board observers
· monitor fisheries habitats

I currently lead a team based at Deception Bay, which has met Ausfish members on many occasions, such as at Fraser Island during the tailor season or during the Toyota Fishing Comp, at boat ramps up and down the coast, at fishing club meetings and on other occasions. I have also been an avid reader of messages on this forum, have contributed a number of times about a range of fishing and boating topics, and have occasionally sent messages to people asking if they would be interested in donating their mackerel frames to our project.

The information our team collects is usually about the relative abundance of fish or crabs (using our own surveys) or about biological characteristics of fish stocks, such as length and age structure (i.e. the relative abundance of 1 year old fish, 2 year old fish etc). Usually, we obtain the biological information about fish stocks by working with existing recreational and commercial fisheries. There are many advantages to working with existing fisheries, not the least of which is there being no need to kill additional, large numbers of fish ourselves. This is obviously an advantage with some of our icon target species like barramundi and Spanish mackerel. Projects that work with existing fisheries are potentially the most cost effective way to go also, and usually result in scientists and fishers working closely together.

The main reason for this message, is to let you know that we are really keen to increase our close links with the recreational fishing industry. In particular, we are keen to hear from anyone (and everyone) that would be interested in the collection of scientific information (e.g. by donating fish frames) to assist the quantitative assessment of a number of important fish stocks in Queensland. These assessments are an important step in the maintenance of long-term, sustainable fisheries.

I believe there is a lot of misinformation out there about why we are collecting specific information and how it ‘could’ be used for other purposes. For our work, we do not need to know precisely where people caught their fish – we record location information at a broad scale, such as Moreton Bay or Sunshine Coast offshore (this still provides us with sufficiently accurate information). Another example is that we don’t need to record how many people contributed to a particular catch we sample – we only record whether it was ‘complete’ or not, so we know whether the data can be considered representative.

That’s about it. It’s important to consider that without the support of a large number of commercial and recreational fishers to collect large amounts of factual information, the department would be faced with either carrying out assessments of fish stocks with substandard data, or looking at alternative assessment methods (that could be more expensive in time and money).



Thanks for your support.

Regards

Jonathan Staunton Smith
Jonathan.staunton-smith@dpi.qld.gov.au (Jonathan.staunton-smith@dpi.qld.gov.au)

[fish-n-dive]

The main reason for this message, is to let you know that we are really keen to increase our close links with the recreational fishing industry.

I'm not so sure the links are that close

I believe there is a lot of misinformation out there about why we are collecting specific information and how it ‘could’ be used for other purposes.

Yes from PETA and other ultra green factions..........




Call me cynical but it is always less fish, less size, less access.............

[Luc]

Given their total silence over the green zones, why should we bother to help DPI&F?

Luc

[kingtin]

Irrespective of your personal opinions about the how you perceive the DPI&F conducting themselves regarding the current proposed closures, I think it only fair that members be reminded about the considerable help we have had from them in the past.

I wrote at great length a while back regarding the advances made in BRD's and the Dept's research into the reduction of by-catch and attempts to minimise by-kill. Most of the knowledge that I imparted here, was given to me by the DPI&F.

The department contacted me personally on this issue and I had made no approach to them. This to me, is akin to offering a hand of friendship to rec fishos at a time when there was some distrust.

If we have distrust, then we have little, if not nothing. We need all the help we can get, and bearing in mind that many have argued against the closures by quoting the DPI&F as saying that the bay is healthy, how then is it that there is mistrust of Johnathon's motives in seeking help?


kev

[fish-n-dive]

Irrespective of your personal opinions about the how you perceive the DPI&F conducting themselves regarding the current proposed closures, I think it only fair that members be reminded about the considerable help we have had from them in the past.

I wrote at great length a while back regarding the advances made in BRD's and the Dept's research into the reduction of by-catch and attempts to minimise by-kill. Most of the knowledge that I imparted here, was given to me by the DPI&F.

The department contacted me personally on this issue and I had made no approach to them. This to me, is akin to offering a hand of friendship to rec fishos at a time when there was some distrust.

If we have distrust, then we have little, if not nothing. We need all the help we can get, and bearing in mind that many have argued against the closures by quoting the DPI&F as saying that the bay is healthy, how then is it that there is mistrust of Johnathon's motives in seeking help?


kev

Everyone has their own opinion and as such you are entitled to yours but then.........so am I..........

I just can't see much in the way of support from the .gov especially in light of the statistics that show rec fishos have a minimal impact on fish stocks compared to pros & pollution etc............

These days most fishos catch and release (less a feed for tea).......

I stand firm on my view that we need to be vigilante and ready to question everything!!! 8-)

[kingtin]

statistics that show rec fishos have a minimal impact on fish stocks compared to pros & pollution etc............

8-)

Can you quote those statistics please?

kev

[fish-n-dive]

Can you quote those statistics please?

kev


Can you produce information that I am not right? Having said that:

The current annual commercial catch of reef fishes from the GBR is about 4000 tonns and the recreational catch is estimated to be about 2000 tonns (from Williams, 2002: p.66 et seq.). With some 346,000 Km² of reef and lagoon area on the GBR the total annual catch comes to about 17 Kg per Km². Elsewhere, over a wide range of Pacific reefs, the average annual catch averages some 7700 Kg per Km² (Adams et al., 1996).

This link shows a table of what is caught and released -

http://www.daff.gov.au/brs/fisheries-marine/data/rec-indig/survey-stats/rec-harvest-table2

[kingtin]

Can you produce information that I am not right?




Why would I want to? That kind of response sounds like you are reading something into my request that is not there? I replied in a genuine response to your statement that: "statistics that show rec fishos have a minimal impact on fish stocks compared to pros & pollution etc............"

I was not aware of any definitive research regarding this in my area, particularly as there is very little pro fin fish fishing in my area. The damage that is caused by pros, would be in the main, trawling in nursery areas such as the Pine River and the catch targeted here is bait prawn which puts as much onus on the rec fishers as it does on the pros. The DPI&F and the pros themselves, have done much to minimise by-catch, and my concern now lies with removal of habitat by tickler chains and the like.

You said:




The current annual commercial catch of reef fishes from the GBR is about 4000 tonns and the recreational catch is estimated to be about 2000 tonns (from Williams, 2002: p.66 et seq.).

Yes, I'm aware of that research, and it goes to show merely that rec fishers catch half the amount that pro fishers do, it does not necessarily mean that their impact is "minimal," which is why I thought you may have another piece of research that I was unaware of.

Now if there is so much hue and cry about pro impact on fish stocks, it can hardly be affirmed that the rec sector has, (in your words), minimal impact, when their catch in the GBR is half as big as the pro catch.........that's a lot of fish and it is either sustainable or it isn't...........it certainly isn't "minimal".

If the rec fishing sector is to argue it's case effectively, then willy nilly statements, made by quoting a single piece of research, is not going to help the cause at all. Yes, I believe that the rec fishers have less impact, and yes, I believe that pollution, removal of mangroves, disturbance of sea floor etc is a much greater impact, but apples must be compared to apples. I would say that in some areas where there is little pro fishing (particularly for fin fish), then rec fishing may be a major factor in fish stock depletion and to point the finger at pros in these cases would only affirm to those who legislate, that the rec sector is "in denial" and that their case would likely then become invalid. We have to pick our words carefully, is all I am saying here. Pointing the finger whilst denying any responsibility ones-self, does not further the cause.

If anyone can help us, it is the DPI&F, we can't do it alone as we don't have the resources.

kev

[Reel Nauti]

I'm sorry if I've missed something or have been under a rock, but I can't help feeling that 17 kgs of total catch per square km, per annum, from the GBR, has surely got to be negligible?? Just seems absolutely bugger all to me.

Dave

[kingtin]

I'm sorry if I've missed something or have been under a rock, but I can't help feeling that 17 kgs of total catch per square km, per annum, from the GBR, has surely got to be negligible?? Just seems absolutely bugger all to me.

Dave

Seems like that to me too Dave, but what it doesn't seem like is "minimal" (definition: the smallest possible amount) in comparison to pros...........it's actually half the amount they catch.

So what would not be considered negligible, I ask myself? I personally, have no bloody idea, but if it's over 34kg, then we don't have a case against the pros.

kev

[Reel Nauti]

So the rec people are only taking one half of what the pros take? This includes God knows how many charters, privately chartered charters, spearos and you and I and thousands like us taking our catches in our boats? If that be the case, then I still think it is minimal. I don't know the numbers of rec fisherman nor pro's who fish the GBR, but I would think that we would outnumber the pro's 1,000's to 1?? That makes us "minimal" - I think (considering it takes that many of us to only catch half). Still and all, at the end of the day, when pro's and recs are only taking in total the amount stated, we are all - together - making a very bloody minimal impact. Just my opinion of course.

Must get round to see you soon Kev!

Dave

[Reel Nauti]

Just one thought, silly as it may sound, but I'm willing to bet that there is far more than 17kgs of fish per square km per annum on the GBR which die of natural causes each year.

Dave

[Reel Nauti]

Let's not forget that it is the TOTAL which equates to 17kg. Pro's and Recs. With us taking only 50% of the total, recs are actually only taking 8.5kg of fish per square km per annum on the GBR. To me, it really doesn't even warrant any concern whatsoever. But I've been wrong before, as Sue will be quick to point out!

Dave

[fish-n-dive]

Don't overlook the fact that we release a goodly per portion of what we catch

http://www.daff.gov.au/brs/fisheries-marine/data/rec-indig/survey-stats/rec-harvest-table2

so in truth we don't even account for half.

[fish-n-dive]

Why would I want to?

I was only pointing out that I can produce info to support my argument and was only asking you if you wanted to do the same. No malice intended.....I think that this sort of discussion needs to be so that we all can learn and increase our understanding of the issues at hand.

That kind of response sounds like you are reading something into my request that is not there? I replied in a genuine response to your statement that: "statistics that show rec fishos have a minimal impact on fish stocks compared to pros & pollution etc............"

I was not aware of any definitive research regarding this in my area, particularly as there is very little pro fin fish fishing in my area. The damage that is caused by pros, would be in the main, trawling in nursery areas such as the Pine River and the catch targeted here is bait prawn which puts as much onus on the rec fishers as it does on the pros. The DPI&F and the pros themselves, have done much to minimise by-catch, and my concern now lies with removal of habitat by tickler chains and the like.

You said:



Yes, I'm aware of that research, and it goes to show merely that rec fishers catch half the amount that pro fishers do, it does not necessarily mean that their impact is "minimal," which is why I thought you may have another piece of research that I was unaware of.

Now if there is so much hue and cry about pro impact on fish stocks, it can hardly be affirmed that the rec sector has, (in your words), minimal impact, when their catch in the GBR is half as big as the pro catch.........that's a lot of fish and it is either sustainable or it isn't...........it certainly isn't "minimal".

If the rec fishing sector is to argue it's case effectively, then willy nilly statements, made by quoting a single piece of research, is not going to help the cause at all.

Very true if I was arguing to the .gov; but, you asked for info and I felt one example was enough to point out that there is info available. As for willy nilly statements, again I point out that everyone has their own opinion and while you may not like mine or indeed the way I word them, in the end, they ARE my statements and my opinion.

Yes, I believe that the rec fishers have less impact, and yes, I believe that pollution, removal of mangroves, disturbance of sea floor etc is a much greater impact, but apples must be compared to apples. I would say that in some areas where there is little pro fishing (particularly for fin fish), then rec fishing may be a major factor in fish stock depletion and to point the finger at pros in these cases would only affirm to those who legislate, that the rec sector is "in denial" and that their case would likely then become invalid.

We have to pick our words carefully, is all I am saying here. Pointing the finger whilst denying any responsibility ones-self, does not further the cause.Agreed

If anyone can help us, it is the DPI&F, we can't do it alone as we don't have the resources. Still not convinced.

kev

...........mich@el

[kingtin]

Dave, I'm questioning only the semantics of the use of the word "minimal" here and how we approach our cause. I don't for a minute question the overall opinions expressed on Ausfish many times, that the rec fisho impact is overstated and depletion of habitat is understated

The writings below that I've dredged out of my files clearly illustrates where I stand.

It makes for dire reading when you consider that GBRMPA has hidden the facts and we all know how the EPA behaves. If we can't get the DPI&F on our side, when other authorities are acting like this, how then is our sport to survive? I see no alternative other than to view the DPI&F as our only hope and to work with them.


Fish census data: coral trout

If overfishing were occurring on the GBR it would surely be reflected in declining populations of the most heavily targeted species. Coral trout are the most heavily fished species on the GBR and constitute 40–45 per cent of the catch. Over the past two decades, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) has contracted for extensive underwater surveys of coral trout numbers on the GBR. This body of information now totals hundreds of surveys encompassing the entire region. These surveys are based on a well designed and conducted methodology, and the results have been treated with appropriate and powerful statistical analysis. In fact, they make up the most extensive and long-term body of population information available for any reef fish anywhere in the world (see Ayling reference series in the References below).

It is also important to bear in mind that this work is not based on estimates or models, but on actual counts of individual fish. These are conducted by making counts along a series of lines across a reef. As each count is made by a single diver moving along a line there is effectively no chance of counting the same fish twice. These samples are then averaged to arrive at a population density for a given reef at that time. Statistical analysis has shown the methodology
used to have a high level of sampling validity. The only reasonable probability for error is that coral trout are somewhat cryptic and there will normally be some fish present that will be hidden in the coral and not seen. Actual
numbers on the reef, therefore, may be somewhat higher but can never be less than are counted.

These surveys show that coral trout are abundant everywhere,and that there is little to no difference between the most frequently fished reefs near population centres and remote rarely visited ones, nor between reefs which are open to fishing and those closed to it. The figures clearly indicate that our most heavily fished species is, in fact, being only lightly harvested. They also strongly imply that no environmental benefits whatever should be expected to accrue from the recently increased restrictions on fishing.

Remarkably, this exceptionally valuable body of survey information exists only as unpublished reports in the library of the Marine Park Authority. Certainly, GBRMPA must have deemed this work important and competently conducted, to have continued to support it at substantial expense for so long. It is difficult to avoid wondering if the reason for the non-publication of these studies is that it was not desired that this information be readily available to the public. Had the findings revealed evidence for overfishing, it seems unlikely they would have been left to languish in a small regional library.

Most disturbing of all, the existence of this exceptional body of knowledge and its total disregard by GBRMPA raises serious questions about the factual basis, scientific quality, and, indeed, even the integrity with which GBRMPA’s management of the reef is being conducted.

The concept of ‘catchability’

The absence of figures to indicate any decrease in fish abundance has not prevented a popular view that a decline has occurred in Great Barrier Reef fish catches over recent decades. The idea that fishing used to be much better
in bygone days reflects a natural human tendency that is common and widespread. In many places, factual information shows that the phenomenon is a real one, and may also show it to stem from overfishing (for example, in the Philippines and Indonesia). This belief is, however, also common where catch statistics provide no support for it.

There are two aspects to this perception. One is imaginary. The other is real but not a result of overfishing. The imaginary aspect stems from a mix of nostalgia, selective memory and seniority. We tend to remember the times when we had good catches and forget the times when we did not. Relating tales of experience inaccessible to one’s audience also has its appeal by confirming one’s own senior status.

Where it can be factually demonstrated that catches have declined, there are two main possible explanations. Overfishing is one. The other rests on the fact that intensive fishing makes fish wary and harder to catch. A common example of the latter situation occurs around many docks and piers, where one can often find dense schools of resident fishes exposed to almost constant fishing, but which are extremely difficult to catch. At the other extreme, on isolated oceanic reefs that have rarely or never been fished, fish are very easy to catch. Any small object dropped in the water will attract attention and may be mouthed by curious fish. Under such circumstances, fish may even be caught with a bare un-baited hook.

On the GBR, a few reefs near population centres are relatively frequently fished and fish there are harder to catch. But as the coral trout surveys have shown, populations of the most heavily fished species on these reefs show little difference from those on reefs which have been closed to fishing. It is worth noting also that it is these same few readily accessible reefs that are the source of most local residents’ experience of the GBR.

Catchability, then, rather than actual abundance, is the basis for many fishermen’s perception of overfishing. It is widely known among fishermen and fishing lure manufacturers that new techniques and lures that are at first highly effective become much less so as they become widely used. Good fishermen are always experimenting with new methods, baits, and lures. Poor fishermen do nothing different until they see everyone else doing it. They remain behind the curve and blame their poor catches on a lack of fish.

ELF
In addition to the coral trout surveys, GBRMPA has also funded a large-scale, long-term study of the Effects of Line fishing (ELF) on the GBR. The conclusions of this study (Mapstone et al., 2004) were:
Coral trout populations are predicted to remain ‘robust’ under all the future projections that were considered.
The likely effect of additional area closures will be poorer fishing.
No evidence was found that fishing had any detrimental effect on biodiversity, or on the ecological integrity of the broader reef community.
Closing more areas to fishing could be expected to increase the impact of fishing in areas left open.
The findings of this study have repeatedly been claimed by GBRMPA to support the need for increasing the areas closed to fishing. However, the study was not released until just after the closed area increases were established. Even now, few people are aware of these conclusions which belie GBRMPA claims, because they are buried in an obscure technical report and cloaked in techno-jargon incomprehensible to the non-specialist.

Summary
The readily available DPI statistics and the extensive but unpublished coral trout surveys both paint a clear and unequivocal picture. The GBR line fishery, far from being overfished, harvests only a small fraction of the potential sustainable yield. Although one can always argue over details of statistics, these are so overwhelming that any errors in percentages are irrelevant. It would require orders-of-magnitude greater fishing pressure to begin to approach a level at which a credible assertion could be made for overfishing.
Where, then, is the evidence for overfishing?

The answer is simple. There isn’t any. The claims of overfishing are based not on evidence and analysis, but simply on opinion and belief. Instead of following the argument and the evidence where they lead, the proponents of ‘overfishing’ ignore or dismiss the facts and denigrate or attempt to discredit those who present them.

The claims of overfishing are based not on evidence and analysis, but simply on opinion and belief.


‘Threats’ to the Great Barrier Reef
IPA Backgrounder, Vol. 17/1, 2005 9

[kingtin]

Michael, I can't reply to each item because of how you have formatted your last response, but I think that all you need to know about where I stand on the matter is in the post above to Dave.

It clearly shows how other authorities behave towards us. My personal experience of the DPI&F and of the info and help that has been provided to me in the past, to publish here, is contradictory to that. What other authority would freely invite rec fishers to view their establishment and what they are doing? What other authority would ask for consultation from rec fishos? It's just unfortunate that when they do, the rec fisho views it with suspicion. Be wary by all means but some fishos wariness verges on downright hostility.

It is the DPI&F who are conducting research, much of which is based on previous research from "independents"and it is they who are implementing and providing freely, statutory BRD's to better our fishery. If they can use that research to better our fishery as I believe they have in the past, as opposed to "burying" it as the GBRMPA has done, then that's good enough for me. I will therefore, rather throw my hat in the ring with them, rather than be a voice in the wilderness.

kev

[castlemaine]

No statistics, no evidence but only a hunch ... Parks and Wildlife have been swallowed up by EPA and Fisheries is on borrowed time.
I have heaps of time for Fisheries officers, great bunch of people on and off the water but they have no control of where else their survey will be used or manipulated.
Cheers 8-)

[fish-n-dive]

Michael, I can't reply to each item because of how you have formatted your last response, but I think that all you need to know about where I stand on the matter is in the post above to Dave.

It clearly shows how other authorities behave towards us. My personal experience of the DPI&F and of the info and help that has been provided to me in the past, to publish here, is contradictory to that. What other authority would freely invite rec fishers to view their establishment and what they are doing? What other authority would ask for consultation from rec fishos? It's just unfortunate that when they do, the rec fisho views it with suspicion. Be wary by all means but some fishos wariness verges on downright hostility.

It is the DPI&F who are conducting research, much of which is based on previous research from "independents"and it is they who are implementing and providing freely, statutory BRD's to better our fishery. If they can use that research to better our fishery as I believe they have in the past, as opposed to "burying" it as the GBRMPA has done, then that's good enough for me. I will therefore, rather throw my hat in the ring with them, rather than be a voice in the wilderness.

kev

Well maybe coming from the same camp but using entirely different tactics is not such a bad thing...........any battle is fought with diplomats and with warriors.....neither one being better than the other but both ready to forward the cause!!!

[BigE]

I remember the last time the DPI&F guys were asking for fish frames (Mackeral) yeah it was just before the bag limts for mackeral changed..... No thanks.

just out of curisoity ask the DPI&F guys what sort of data would actually increase bag limits or regain access to fishing zones? watch for the blank look their face for even suggesting such a farce.

Regards
BigE

[Horse]

How do you fellas want our fishery managed?

With half assed guesses like the EPA >:( who base their decision making processes on pop science or on valid scientifically based management plans that will work towards a proper balance between conserving stocks allowing access from various user groups.

I support several of the restrictions being imposed on our recreational fishery as they make sense to me while I strongly oppose many others as they do not :P .

The fact that we have been shafted by the EPA does not mean we should group all agencies together. Lets give the DPI&F some data so they have something to support their arguement that Moreton bay is a sustainable fishery pretty much as it is.

I for one will assist Fisheries in any way I can.

Cheers

Neil

[Jono_SS]

G'day BigE.

you might remember me - I was the one who asked you for the mackerel frames. In fact, I was deleting a whole lot of old messages recently and noticed it was just over 2 years ago (i.e. January 2006). Are you 1 of the lucky ones to hook into some this season?

Correct me if I'm wrong, BigE, but I don't think bag limits for spotted mackerel or Spanish mackerel changed since 2006? I do think it was in the Inshore RIS to drop school mackerel though, so hopefully you took the opportunity to provide your opinions to DPI&F on that.

The comments in your message are the sort of incorrect contribution to this post that we can probably do without. Of course you are entightled to your opinion, but trying to sway people's opinions about not helping out by providing information that looks correct, but isn't, is not very appropriate.

we have already had a few people responding positively, which is good.

if anyone manages to get into some mackerel (spot and span) in the next few weeks, we are desparate for frames of those species.

thanks.

Jono

[Horse]

Jono

You are not the only one deperate for some Macs. Its just that most of us still want the fillets attached;D

Cheers

Neil

[TimiBoy]

I'm not a fan of the changes being mooted. They won't make any difference. It would be much smarter to have more inspectors on the water to enforce the current laws. I've seen boatloads of idiots with heaps of undersized stuff, going home to the grinder. THEY are the problem.

I have never been pulled over by fisheries - they are unlikely to find a fish on board, I rarely keep anything anyway. I get out once a week, roughly.

The point is, if they are going to expand the zones, and not vastly, VASTLY increase their presence on the water, it will not make one fig of a difference.

[nautilus]

For a start, I think that helping these people is the only way we can get some decent data on the subject which so often comes up as a topic.

Second, and this is aimed mostly at you Reel Nauti, every single person on this site over the age of 20 who has fished most of their life (which includes me) can tell you there were more fish around 20 years ago than there are now. That means that we are catching fish at a rate that is not sustainable. Even if it is only 17kg per square km it must be too much otherwise fish stocks would not be reduced.

[Reel Nauti]

Go the green Nautilus!

The 17kg, total of pro and rec, is for the GBR. Have fish stocks depleted there??

No.

Thank you

Dave

[fish-n-dive]

For a start, I think that helping these people is the only way we can get some decent data on the subject which so often comes up as a topic.

Second, and this is aimed mostly at you Reel Nauti, every single person on this site over the age of 20 who has fished most of their life (which includes me) can tell you there were more fish around 20 years ago than there are now. That means that we are catching fish at a rate that is not sustainable. Even if it is only 17kg per square km it must be too much otherwise fish stocks would not be reduced.

Sorry mate, I'm a member of this site and have been for a while and I can't really agree that there were more fish 20 years ago.........yes some fish have disappeared but not via recreational fishing and please remember..........seasons come and seasons go............it's really hard to compare apples with oranges!!;)

[kingtin]

For a start, I think that helping these people is the only way we can get some decent data on the subject which so often comes up as a topic.

Second, and this is aimed mostly at you Reel Nauti, every single person on this site over the age of 20 who has fished most of their life (which includes me) can tell you there were more fish around 20 years ago than there are now. That means that we are catching fish at a rate that is not sustainable. Even if it is only 17kg per square km it must be too much otherwise fish stocks would not be reduced.

Nautilus, if you read the research that I have posted above, you will see some real evidence re the GBR and also why it is often mooted that "fishing was so much better back then". The para entitled "the concept of catchability" is particularly telling. Lack of catch does not necessarily mean that there is a lack of fish. It can also mean that the fish are better "educated" or that they have different feeding patterns due to increased boat traffic etc. There is also research that shows that some fish reduction is due not to overfishing but lack of plankton etc. Throughout history there have been "lean times" due to cycles both natural and un-natural, and the constant assumption that "fishing back when was better" is not true in many instances/locations.


kev

[ozbee]

fish stocks have changed from experience of green zones in the north in that trout sizes averages have increased especially in 60 ft mark and beyond . in shallower areas the trout size is particularly just legal or under , this has been caused by heavy fishing of pros for the live export market . My views have changed in time and i assure you yours probably will to over time that green zones will not necessary be the death knell just a hinderance but a increase in fish size is a pleasant outcome.When one sees the continual attack on trout numbers in the shallows on the reef by pros ,in time one gets a good feeling when the neighbour reef is protected and can resupply the numbers on the overfished area. yes i must admit that it hurts when areas you fish are closed but i have found that close by areas out of the green zone actually pick-up in numbers and size. so all is not lost . my personal view is go for the shotgun affect in that fight for a lot of small areas open amongst the green for the best effect for fishing and conservation of numbers. hope this helps but a collection of views is required and best to have documented proof like from the dpi even though for sure the epa will use it to find the most productive areas but it is up to you as a body to get a reasonable return of areas for fishing amongst THEM.

[tigermullet]

For a start, I think that helping these people is the only way we can get some decent data on the subject which so often comes up as a topic.

Second, and this is aimed mostly at you Reel Nauti, every single person on this site over the age of 20 who has fished most of their life (which includes me) can tell you there were more fish around 20 years ago than there are now. That means that we are catching fish at a rate that is not sustainable. Even if it is only 17kg per square km it must be too much otherwise fish stocks would not be reduced.

I am well over 60 and still catch exactly the same number of fish now as I was about 32 years ago. There hasn't been any fall off in numbers or weight as far as bream and flathead go at Jumpinpin.

Luderick are another matter but that is probably due to dry weather and higher temperatures causing weed growth to be less abundant.

We just need a bit more rain and the winter to start on time but now that we have an ex rock and roll singer in charge of the environment I am sure that everything will be ok again pretty soon. Another rock and roll singer fixed up all the problems that Africa was having with starvation so I cannot see why one of our ex singers cannot do just as well.

[Matt_Campbell]

Here's a queston. Could you go out in your grandfathers clinker boat, with cat gut handlines, no sounder, so braid, no sp's, no yabby pump, etc and catch the same numbers of fish your grandfather did?

[cqfreshie]

Here's a queston. Could you go out in your grandfathers clinker boat, with cat gut handlines, no sounder, so braid, no sp's, no yabby pump, etc and catch the same numbers of fish your grandfather did?


No Way:-[

It is so easy to forget that modern equipment/tech does make life so much easier.

[Reel Nauti]

Matt,

I only have a very basic sounder (for depth mainly), have never owned or fished braid, nor sp's, and I don't pump yabbies. Am I in the dark ages? Yeah probably!!

For me it's just a case of old habits die real hard and take a long, long time. In my home area, this has not impeded my catch rate at all and neither have I seen a decline in the best part of 40 years. Sure some species come and go, but look at the constants, particularly mud crabs, there year after year after year. And the GBR, solid as always.

Cheers

Dave