Wrong Wrong Wrong [Archive] - Ausfish fishing Australia, Australian Angling Forums

MudRiverDan

24-05-2013, 12:07 PM

Isnt that just exactly the point of whinging about it.. using the whole fish... mentioning targeting spawning fish full of roe and selling it to the japanese just makes it even worse..

Hard to say really, without any real proof.

All I know is all the beach fishos I have chatted to over the last few weeks have only really been catching dart.

The netters make money out of it, so its a fair deal in that regard, and it would be top quality product.

There just does not seem to be many fish left over for beach rec fishers, In saying that we don't own the beach, nor can we really have a go at guys making a dollar when if they were not doing it someone else would be.

There obviously needs to be some kind of monetary buy out of financial return if you expect people to leave a money making venture.

Not sure how a buyback would be effective.

Makes you wonder with a fish like mullet being a plankton feeder maybe they could dump some iron in the water down south and increase their numbers, kind of like farming (of course would be cost blow out, just thinking)
Then of course you would have a glut in the market and no one would make as much money.

Actually mullet are not to bad to eat when fresh.

Simply as it appears as much as many like to bag the environmentalists amongst us, the world still very much relies on the environment to fill its belly.

My opinion has always been clean up and look after the major rivers and waterways, which is a long term strategy starting from Jack mowing his lawn to Jill working in an Industrial plant, then all the way to the waterways themselves.

Dan

Noelm

24-05-2013, 12:11 PM

aahh, must be winter again, this old topic gets dragged out every season.

MudRiverDan

24-05-2013, 12:29 PM

I my honest opinion, the doers and thinkers of the research world frequently get knocked on the head to be replaced by yes men and desktop aficionados who can write a scientific report without even leaving the office (yes thats right, that is how most of them are produced, it called desktop based research).

We get what we deserve.

Dan

Noelm

24-05-2013, 12:40 PM

When I fish off Kingscliff or Black rock beach I always see huge trawlers about 2km out, must be sitting in a channel, someone told me prawns but I'll bet they are fish trawlers too.
Dan
See how all this sort of thing goes belly up, you see a couple of trawlers, you are told they are Prawn trawlers, but you "bet" they are fish trawlers, the fact is.... you have no idea do you? does not make it right or wrong, but you need to KNOW before any aspersions are cast on any fishing method.

Jarrah Jack

24-05-2013, 12:49 PM

Need that and more for Agnes in september.

Noelm

24-05-2013, 12:51 PM

yep, take a very long time with cast net to get 50KG of decent fillets.

MudRiverDan

24-05-2013, 01:43 PM

See how all this sort of thing goes belly up, you see a couple of trawlers, you are told they are Prawn trawlers, but you "bet" they are fish trawlers, the fact is.... you have no idea do you? does not make it right or wrong, but you need to KNOW before any aspersions are cast on any fishing method.

Just a hunch after watching them for many nights. ;)
Although not sure what the point is?
Was a simple statement, prove me wrong then, tell me 100% there are not fish trawlers there?

Anyway I am not here to wage war with trawlers, I just suggested that the boat trawlers would take more than any beach netter.

Pretty sure the one I see sitting off the end of Kingscliff wall is not a prawn trawler.

Dan

Muddy Toes

24-05-2013, 02:11 PM

http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=20

Just a thought but maybe you'd get more value out of this forum MRD........you might be able to figure out all there is to about the job market, aussies, kiwis and trawlers by the sounds of it now. Must be a fun old ride in your head some days........

cobiaman

24-05-2013, 02:19 PM

Boat Hog

24-05-2013, 02:43 PM

There is some interesting reading there....

There sure is ..... I like the one about Jewish Freemason Police Chiefs trying to destroy the last profitable business in America - The Escort Business!:o Here I was thinking it was their job to stamp out illegal prostitution. Hmm silly me .... I'm not very good at this conspiracy thing am I? Best leave it to the experts.

Anyway to get this thread Back on Topic; Here's a picture of some vac packed mullet fillets in my freezer;
92877

Probably came from some beach netters, but then could have come from those "3 or 4 Massive boats sitting just offshore every night"? Hard to see how they could be Trawling when they are just sitting there .... in a channel ....... Do I smell a conspiracy?::):-X Dunno, as demonstrated, I'm not very good at the whole conspiracy thing. So ....over to you Dan.

Cheers,

cobiaman

24-05-2013, 02:52 PM

There sure is ..... I like the one about Jewish Freemason Police Chiefs trying to destroy the last profitable business in America - The Escort Business!:o Here I was thinking it was their job to stamp out illegal prostitution. Hmm silly me .... I'm not very good at this conspiracy thing am I? Best leave it to the experts.

Anyway to get this thread Back on Topic; Here's a picture of some vac packed mullet fillets in my freezer;
92877

Probably came from some beach netters, but then could have come from those "3 or 4 Massive boats sitting just offshore every night"? Hard to see how they could be Trawling when they are just sitting there .... in a channel ....... Do I smell a conspiracy?::):-X Dunno, as demonstrated, I'm not very good at the whole conspiracy thing. So ....over to you Dan.

Cheers,

I love the one about jesus being the anti-christ!

4x4frog

24-05-2013, 02:55 PM

They make money from the roe, it goes to Japan I'm told.
from what I seen of it around Pottsville last weekend, it was mostly mullet.

When I fish off Kingscliff or Black rock beach I always see huge trawlers about 2km out, must be sitting in a channel, someone told me prawns but I'll bet they are fish trawlers too.

Personally I don't see the point in worrying about beach netters, I am sure the beach netters account for a minimal take compared to the 3 or 4 Massive boats sitting just offshore every night.

Just wish there was more fish left overall for us.

Dan

Dan,
From the way I see it, after reading several studies and reports into the effects of netting on fish activity and reactions, it should be more controlled.
Sure, they are only taking mullet but apparently, according to reports, all fish in a netted area will boycott or steer clear of that area for a while after a netting episode due to the fish which were netted letting off distress calls.
Not sure how true it is but there must be some truth to it as it makes sense

Boat Hog

24-05-2013, 02:57 PM

I love the one about jesus being the anti-christ!

Yeah that was a good one! Jesus may or may not be the Anti Christ, but I'll tell you one thing ..... He was still a better fisherman than ShaneC!

cobiaman

24-05-2013, 02:59 PM

Yeah that was a good one! Jesus may or may not be the Anti Christ, but I'll tell you one thing ..... He was still a better fisherman than ShaneC!

Just found one that says

"Before this article is finished, it would be a noteworthy addition to state that the Bush family and their many associates are members of a ancient reptilian bloodline, now in humanoid form. Do your research, for the truth awaits you."

Now that is gold!

MudRiverDan

24-05-2013, 03:04 PM

Well I am not too sure if I am seeing a ghost, but Moe, Larry and Curly are posting here? Incredible!...
What next I wonder?

Peter4

24-05-2013, 03:27 PM

Watch out - according to the thread entitled "Book of Revalations" there is a very real probability that we will be nuked in 2011 or 2012...

Oh, wait a minute...;D;D

My, my, there are some real nutters in the old US of A...:-?

bigjimg

24-05-2013, 07:49 PM

I thought a mullet was a hair style.............Ahh yes and then if you cook you put a net over it. Am I off topic or is this what we're talking about. What oops sorry my fingers slipped. Carry on.Jim

thelump

24-05-2013, 09:41 PM

Well I am not too sure if I am seeing a ghost, but Moe, Larry and Curly are posting here? Incredible!...
What next I wonder?

I thought I was curly?

mattooty

24-05-2013, 09:55 PM

Well....Lets clear up some myths and wonders about beach hauling and offshore trawlers.

From the point the picture is taken the mullet are netted, loaded onto utes and transported to the nearest processing plant to be processed directly or they are placed in 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5m bins in an ice slurry and sent to the Sydney Fish Market for buyers to process themselves.
The processing process involves running a serrated knife along the back of the mullets head between the start of the dorsal fin and and the back of the head making a cut only deep enough to touch the top of the backbone. While wearing a full body apron then fish is then held belly to belly against the processor and the neck is cracked and the head, guts and pec fins come off in one fluid movement.
The head/guts/pecs were always binned up and boxed to be sold as crab bait or crab and gut bait that you buy in stores. 90% of mullet gut you buy from a tackle store was processed during the mullet haul season.

With the trunk of the mullet now only being the fillets, spine, tail, scales and roe left together the next step is removing the roe. This is done with a modified fillet knife with a ball of solder melted on to avoid busting the roe sacks as if they're busted they're not worth a dime. The ball is slid down the gut towards the anus with blade-side up till it rolls out the anus leaving the roe sacks (x2) attached still. It's then removed and packed individually, before being cryo-vacc'ed and sold to the export market, dependant on quality, for between $30-$100 a kilo. There is always a percentage that gets sold domestically but Aussies being Aussies always throw their noses up so it's quite low.

The left-over trunks are used in one of two ways. If the roe is not of a high quality the fillets are generally good quality, if the roe is high quality then obviously the fish has put all its energy into producing the roe and isn't in top shape and is generally sold to the bait market.

There are obviously many variables in the process but that was how I managed my floor teams and sales teams through the process when I worked for a Co-Operative on Northern NSW.

As for the Ocean Trawlers,....

"When I fish off Kingscliff or Black rock beach I always see huge trawlers about 2km out, must be sitting in a channel, someone told me prawns but I'll bet they are fish trawlers too.

Personally I don't see the point in worrying about beach netters, I am sure the beach netters account for a minimal take compared to the 3 or 4 Massive boats sitting just offshore every night."

They might look like they're 2km out but chances are they could be anywhere up to 30miles out if you can still see their running lights.
Finfish are only a marginal bycatch in the Ocean Prawn Trawl industry. Sand flathead and Diver whiting (winter whiting) are primarily the biggest finfish weighed in. They generally don't trawl much else up as trawlers don't run near reefs. You get just as high a tonnage trawling barren ocean floor as you would near reefs so there's no point risking your thousands of dollars of nets for a minimal increase in turnover.
Ever wonder where the crumbed whiting fillets that you buy....everywhere.... comes from? Trawler bycatch. Guaranteed.

The majority of boats that catch fin fish are either trap boats running box traps near reefs (largely targeting snapper, leather-jackets and other demersals), hand-line licenses (rod and reel pro's) and pelagic long-liners. There's still a ring-netting industry in CQ I believe but I don't know to much about it.

At the end of the day these blokes are only making a living in a legal industry. If you've got a bee in your bonnet over it, do something about it. I'm not overly in favor of the beach haul industry but for the moment it's legal and declared sustainable whether you think so or not. No point vilifying a few blokes for making themselves an honest living when you've got people doing much worse, shady con-men, drug dealers and every other ILLEGAL industry running rampant under our noses.

Da-Jew-Man

25-05-2013, 05:52 AM

Every Year makes me sick, very sick to see this.

Yes it is legal, but it is so wrong in every aspect and should be changed.

They make a living, what do they do for the rest of the year or after all the mullet have been netted.
This is just cream to the netters as they all have other sources of income.

The last couple of years the Tailor and Jew ( of any size) In Northern NSW have been as scarce as rocking horse ....
This year was shaping up as a good one with good Tailor 3 kg + caught in the last month.
Let me say again :
Mullet are the food source for Tailor,Jew, Bream. Take away the food source and guess what all you can catch will be
a couple of dart, possibly some whiting . You might get a couple of poor tailor but that is it.

Others have reported a "desert" for fishing after the beach is netted and this is FACT.

This has got to be stopped or phased out over time.

gruntahunta

25-05-2013, 06:52 AM

Have you ever seen or spoken to one of the pro fisherman on the Clarence river at Illuka? They sit for hours upon hours waiting for the mullet to come down the river. Row their boats out and fire their nets. Sometimes they get lots, some times they get zero.

Once they shoot their net, that is it, as the fish will not be back so if they shoot at a small school they miss the big school. These blokes are not rich, they live a lonely life on the river edge. Once the mullet season has finished they have to net for bream just to feed their families. All this is forgotten about by some recreational fisherman, recreational says it all, it's for fun not your livelihood.

I for one admire the skill, patience and dedication by these people and do not begrudge anyone making a living from a legal source. Legal being the operative word.

gruntahunta

25-05-2013, 06:56 AM

Actually mullet are not to bad to eat when fresh.

Dan[/QUOTE]

Mullet are bloody good when cooked whole, like bream....lovely white flesh when fresn....beautiful

Scalem

25-05-2013, 07:16 AM

Is your comment any less applicable da Jew man about other forms of professional gathering of bait species such as pilchards? Occasionally the humble pillie populations had to bounce back after a sickness swept through the schools, I can't recall if its happened recently but a few years ago it was a major concern. Wipe out a food source like the pillie and see what ecological effect you have on other species? So it comes back to sustainable harvesting, both mullet and pillie netting are regulated through gov authorities and these guys in the 1st instance will be commercially licensed to carry out their specialised method of harvesting. Not sure where all the harvest goes. Roe? Sushi in an overseas Japanese restaurant or Dutch rollmops, but I haven't fished a fresh slab of mullet for trag in ages, maybe we should start there and veto bait fishing all together . Ha! That will get your tongues wagging!

Scalem

Da-Jew-Man

25-05-2013, 07:52 AM

gruntahunta

25-05-2013, 08:18 AM

Da Jjew Man

Maybe YOU should get a different pastime. What a stupid comment you made..

Scalem

25-05-2013, 08:33 AM

Gruntahunta

Netters -Sitting for ages, lonely life !!!!!! Get a different job then
Where talking about beachnetting/hauling where boats, jet skis and 4wd's are used, Oh and by the way they hardly never miss any when they run a net
getting the whole school.

Scalem

You are spot on SUSTAINABLE
But how can it be sustainable when the netters hit every school from Newcastle to Noosa. Technology today allows them to monitor schools and be ready
when they arrive,nets out and then to the co-op.
Ripping the food chain to pieces for roe for the Middle East and Asia Can anyone agree to that.
Not talking about trag jew, mulloway to be more exact.
Yes I agree with you over other forms of bait gathering.
When was the last survey/report done into bait gathering by commercial fisherman?

This is and always be a big issue to beachfishers.

Mate, the obvious inference is that you don't think that current practices ARE NOT sustainable, despite the fact that this form of mullet harvesting has been around for ages, even when Jesus said "guys, cast your nets on this side of the boat", and you guessed it, they were mullet! Only Joking::) But the point is, this form must be sustainable and when evidence would suggest otherwise, fisheries reduce catch quotas and buy back licenses, which we know has been happening in other areas of the commercial sector.

In the string every school from Newcastle to Noosa is an unquantifiable use of the word every. There is no way you can prove that, we would all be staggered to know just how many fish every school of mullet represents, covering that amount of coastline real estate. Neither can you prove that they "get the whole School" unless you are in the water filming during an operation. Generalization needs testing as to its accuracy, and the only way to do that is to help get an accurate base line. If you don't think fisheries have an accurate base line and are concerned about it, start looking for risk assessment and scientific studies. Not enough recently done you say? Let's help fisheries establish a credible base line? Sound familiar? May have been easier to help with reef fish species, but Mullet which is not as much targeted species by recreational fishermen and we have a problem... we don't know and can't know if the bags of fish these guys are taking is sustainable except when we see them in operation, by our recreational understanding, that's a LOT OF FISH!

Personally I am not repulsed by seeing these guys in action, as Gruntahunta has said, its these guys profession and conditions may not allow for a regular harvest from the beach. I don't know where technology comes into their methods other than a good pair of binoculars and a good knowledge of spotting a school according to reading the water and seeing colour change. Can you explain how technology allows them to be ready for their arrival?

Scalem

BLOOEY

25-05-2013, 10:14 AM

I've all but given up on catching decent fish off the beach in winter. I could see the prop wash off the beach on the last new moon from a trawler, they come very very close to the beach at times. Then a beach hauler drove all the way along the beach spotlighting the surf including the gutter i was fishing. 3 blokes fishing in 2 locations for 1 shovelnose and a wobbegong. Fishing is my passion and Golf or Billiards is not going to replace it. Very disheartening for me personally to see the haulers active. Ben

Mike Delisser

25-05-2013, 11:09 AM

But the point is, this form must be sustainable and when evidence would suggest otherwise, fisheries reduce catch quotas and buy back licenses, which we know has been happening in other areas of the commercial sector.
Scalem

I know about the licence buy back Scalem, but where are Fisheries reducing catch quotas? Other than for us rec-anglers that is ::).
Cheers

MudRiverDan

25-05-2013, 11:33 AM

I think they could use those big ponds out the end of the Port of Brisbane as a fish farm! :D

They could give people jobs and make a profit from the unused ponds.
Then when they reclaim some space for the port they can move the ponds further out.

Not only that but it is a Port!
They have already proven to hold and keep snapper.

I mean countries like Vietnam and Thailand use every thing they got, if a farmer has a dam he grows fish and catches frogs, if he has yard space he grows mushrooms in straw and sells them.

Do a google on it and you will see the huge salt dams they have.

Dan

Noelm

25-05-2013, 01:42 PM

BLOOEY

25-05-2013, 02:28 PM

How is the spotlighting thing a crock Noelm? I believe spotlights shined into the surf startle and scatter the fish to the deeper water. Yep Wobbegongs from the beach or is that a crock aswell? Ben

MudRiverDan

25-05-2013, 02:51 PM

How is the spotlighting thing a crock Noelm? I believe spotlights shined into the surf startle and scatter the fish to the deeper water. Yep Wobbegongs from the beach or is that a crock aswell? Ben

BLOOEY it appears as you have been called out as a "wobbygong fibber" ;D:P

BLOOEY

25-05-2013, 04:43 PM

BLOOEY it appears as you have been called out as a "wobbygong fibber" ;D:P

Haha! so it would seem dan! Must have imagined that 4by dragging the pro boat up the beach shining that 5billion candlepower spottie in the surf and my eyes too. Ben

cuzzamundi

25-05-2013, 04:45 PM

I was wondering when the old"spotlighting" thing would come up, what a crock, Wobbygong from the beach? I also wonder why they use the same beach the next day, when all the fish for miles around have disappeared because of netting the day before !

As someone who's both line fished and speared from many a beach, there are an eff tonne of wobbies and shovels that inhabit the break zone. No lies from Ben, I'm afraid.

Cuzza

Horse

25-05-2013, 05:09 PM

Wheres the pictures fellas. All this talk of Wobbygongs and no pics. Its all a bit hard to believe;D

bigjimg

25-05-2013, 05:16 PM

mattooty

26-05-2013, 01:05 PM

To cut a long story short, each year there are plenty of blokes who scream and shout bloody murder during mullet season but everytime I've been to a community forum regarding Pro vs Amateur vs Charter there seems to be very few who lift their heads out of their behinds and have a proper go at making a change.

Slider

27-05-2013, 06:05 AM

Couple of comments -

The netters that are mentioned as searching at night after a recent previous haul are most likely looking for schools of mullet that are expected to exit the Tweed to spawn. These mullet would be unaware of the previous haul due to their still being in the river when it occurred and must exit to spawn irrespective. The pros know the mullet are coming and their job is to find out them once they exit. This aspect is critical to the viability of the mullet fishers, otherwise they would constantly be spooking their target species and viability would be out the window.

Because mullet have been netted for 100 years and are still being netted does not mean that they are a sustainable resource under the current fishing arrangements. The north east atlantic cod was netted for hundreds of years before their population suddenly and unexpectedly collapsed in the 1990s putting tens of thousands of people out of work - for example.

There has been significant improvements in technology and efficiencies in the ocean haul sector over the last 100 years. It is accepted that between 2 - 4% 'effort creep' should be applied to any fishery assessment. I have applied 3% in the attached graphs pertaining to mullet yields and effort.

The attached sample graphs are of commercial catch data of mullet and correlated to tailor, spotted & spanish mackerel data and including some in relation to tern data. Is some interesting trends and particularly relating to the months in which different species are taken (or not taken). The graphs also raise questions as to the assumed sustainability of mullet netting - under the current arrangements.

Lindsay
.

lbger

27-05-2013, 09:50 AM

One last thing from me....As a rec fisher who loves his fishing i cant understand on a rec fishing forum there are people that agree that mullet beach hauling is fine.. makes me wonder if you even fish at all or just sit at the computer and type stuff?
Thats it from me.

Noelm

27-05-2013, 11:35 AM

Well... this is how it goes, sometimes it needs a view from the "other side" to make the facts evident, anyone can post a rant about a topic without any factual basis at all, I have posted lots of times taking an apposing view to many topics, even though I didn't 100% support the pro/rec/charter/method.... etc any debates need input from all parties concerned a one eyed rant will get no one anywhere, it might make you feel better, but it wont change a thing, so, lets look at what you just posted, you think Mullet fishing should be banned, am I correct? why exaclty do you think this should be the case? because you haven't caught a Mullet for years? you just don't like pros? you think they are raping the beach? or would you prefer to just "rant" from your computer without any constructive thoughts or possibilities at all?

lbger

27-05-2013, 01:19 PM

Noelm, Firstly check where my last post was located, straight after Sliders post and attachment. Secondly check where im located.. thats right the gold coast where this has just happened. All the constructive talk in the world cant take away the fact that this practice is horrible to see, if you disagree or want to put up "their" side of the argument well that's your prerogative mate. The thread as a whole is a rant...
You would sing a different tune if this happened to your favourite fishing spot.. I would put my house on it.

Noelm

27-05-2013, 02:00 PM

happens all the time, Mullet hauling is a big resource down my way, been going on for well.... forever, is it right? is it wrong? dont know for 100% sure, but considering the effort in relation to the return, and catch rates, it APPEARS to be doing OK, we have a big fishery for Slimies and Yellowtail, there is 3 boats that get literally tonnes a day, all year round (not just a season) and there is still as many Slimies around as there ever was, so whats the answer? do we just ban everything we don't like? much like the greens want to ban ALL fishing (including recs) do you think that is a good idea? the Greens don't like us barbarians torturing fish, so they have a valid case to ban us all, dont you think? same thing yes/no

Noelm

27-05-2013, 02:02 PM

OH, and you just lost your house! Mullet fishing is big time in my fishing area.

allanbruce52

27-05-2013, 02:09 PM

In my experience all the fish I have targeted to fish in my local estuary have been in greater numbers when following the mullet schools in winter. When the netter's hit the mullet and the numbers drop as they have steadily over the last 50 or more years the catches of other fish also drop off. So in my eyes the netting of mullet etc directly effects the numbers of fish in general. I wish this practice was slashed. I wouldn't mind if the price of mullet went up as I would rather the other species anyway and there would be plenty of mullet around to through the cast net over.
Probably not much use winging anyway as those involved couldn't give a ---- what I say here about it so things won't change until there are none left to catch.
The other issue is the destruction of habitat which has been going on unchallenged for a long time.

Noelm

27-05-2013, 02:23 PM

that's the problem, we ALL whinge and whine and carry on about goings on, but do jack sh!t about it, that's were I am leading, to get anything at all changed, it needs to be an informed and united front, single whingers on a forum will do nothing at all, except incite debate, which to my way of thinking is a very good thing.

lbger

27-05-2013, 02:35 PM

So.. you get down to the beach and target Jew in the mullet run in shellharbour Noel?
I lived on the south coast for 27 years (Narooma) I wasnt saying that the fishery isn't down there also mate.. i used to target the kings off the rock ledges of Malua bay, Jervis bay and Mystery bay in the mullet run.. We used to also target northern blues as well. localised netting is just horrid it stuffs the local fishery up for sure.. My house is safe.
Remember the massive trawler that almost set up permanent shop at Eden targeting slimies.. devastating stuff.
Did you ever get to fish the Bermi yellowfin tournament? The fish just weren't there in any numbers for years.. why? the bait wasn't either.. not from scientific experience but from actually being out there and seeing it.
Have a drive down down the road to Coila lake (Tuross) and see if you can get a few bream out of there.. It just had hundreds and hundreds of boxes pulled out of it..
I still stand by my rant.. Beach hauling is rubbish.

You can sit on the fence Noel..Iim not like that with stuff so obvious..

GABBA110360

27-05-2013, 05:33 PM

MudRiverDan

27-05-2013, 05:33 PM

I would like to see those graphs collated with data from the Cabarita Greenback comp, or any other comp similar.

Graph mostly shows usual stuff, nothing new,monthly data - mullet Tailor June,July,, etc etc

However..

Yearly data shows bad year nearly almost follows a good one which might indicate offspring to mature adult fish had been inhibited by bulk net of spawning adult the previous year.
Which would also be nothing new.
Though to gain and equilibrium between rec fisher, pro and sustainability, IMO the Government would have to inject some compensatory money until it's reached.

BTW graphs can be very deceptive especially multiple graphs on multiple scales.

Dan

BLOOEY

27-05-2013, 06:40 PM

Slider the spotlighting on the particular night i was talking about occured far further south than the tweed but i did observe haulers on the nearest beach to it 2 days previuos to this! Pro's search for mullet day and night when they are active and that is 100 percent true. It most definately affects other fish habits and that is 100 percent true. This is only from my experieience and i have no agenda apart from wanting to catch larger fish from the beach. Ben

Slider

28-05-2013, 07:04 AM

No worries Blooey. Spotlighting for mullet is a common practise and not helpful for fishers looking for anything other than mullet. I'd be more worried about the net though.

Dan, there's nothing deceptive or usual about these graphs if you know how to interpret them - they show the data and in ways I certainly haven't seen before. The data shows that tailor in particular, but the other species also, are rarely taken by net during June and July which are the big mullet months and when by far the highest concentration of netters are present. Now why would this be the case when tailor have traditionally arrived in this region on their spawning migration during May or as early as late April?

The argument can be made that the pros are focused on mullet during June and July with nets not suitable for tailor and there is some truth in this. However, the resident tern data and the known link between these terns and tailor, shows that the tailor are not present to be netted in June or July. And I'm doubtful that if there were schools of tailor available in June or July that the pros would repeatedly drive straight past them anyway. They manage to find time to net dart when opportunity presents and have always been prepared, and still do throw the tailor nets in the boat during the mullet season - especially in W34 fishery grid.

What this means is that the observation of disappearing fish species that recs target after the first large haul of mullet in June each year, is now statistically replicated in the graphs. The observed disappearance of crested terns (and gannets) after the first haul of mullet in June each year because they have to follow the tailor that have been spooked by the mullet nets, is now statistically replicated in the graphs. If I could access better quality data, then I could show in graphs each mullet haul and how nothing other than mullet is taken by net in the same fishery grid in the weeks following that haul. Can do so to some degree with the data I have, but this can be fine tuned enormously. Of course, if the nets aren't finding anything after each haul, then anglers certainly aren't going to either and that is what has been observed all around the world for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Re mackerel - I have observed any number of times a mullet net in June spooking nearshore surface feeding mackerels and tunas. The mackerels and tunas disappear immediately - before the net has hit the beach - and generally we don't see them again until Dec/Jan/Feb. Based on these observations and the attached graphs, mullet nets may well be bringing the mackerel and tuna seasons to a premature end in SEQ and subsequently the migratory terns which are dependent on the mackerels and tunas fly prematurely to northern Asia - whether fattened up for the flight or otherwise. The graphs definitely show that there is zero overlap of mullet and mackerel/migratory terns. Some would argue that this is due to their seasons having never overlapped - but we don't know that because mullet and mackerel netting has been going on longer than any of our memories. I have certainly seen mackerel and tuna in June/July in this region and who's to say they wouldn't be far more common if not for the mullet nets. Irrespective, there are issues here that are potentially very serious for mackerel sustainability whilst netting of school and grey mackerel and other mackerel bycatch is permitted.

As to mullet - the graphs clearly show that the amount of effort required to catch a reducing quantity of mullet in 2 of the 3 grids assessed, continues to increase. The daily average catch per licence owner (boat) is clearly reducing in each grid which is very troubling for the fishery and the fishers and is quite obviously unsustainable.

What's not factored into the graphs is that when there is more effort involved in the actual catching of fish, then there must be more effort involved in locating the fish in the first place - which is never logged by K8 fishers though is supposed to be. This aspect should add more % to the 'effort' charted in the graphs.

Fishery managers everywhere are well aware of effort creep and the need to reduce fishing pressure to compensate in order for sustainability to be maintained. This doesn't seem to be considered by our fishery managers though when it comes to inshore netting and this will have to change if sustainability of all our inshore species is to be maintained.

An example of effort creep in the ocean haul sector is the 'teaming up' by licence holders which is a permitted activity. Where before teaming up occurred around 2000 in this region, a single netter with a single net might be able to take perhaps 6 or 7 tonnes of a 40 tonne school with the other 33 or 34 tonne fleeing and probably not taken at all. Now, 9 netters with 9 nets can take the whole 40 tonnes at a time before the mullet flee and also share searching duties which is an efficiency increase by K8 fishers in the hundreds of percent. The 3% allowed for effort creep in my graphs is almost certainly well below the actual effort creep occurring. From 1988, 3% p.a. effort creep allowance only allows for a total of 69% effort creep by 2011. Then there's nylon nets, spotter planes, 4wd & boat technology increase, improved access to the fishing grounds, polarised sunnies and large trucks and 4wd support vehicles to cart the catch - 3% might allow for these improved efficiencies.

While I believe that we can continue to net mullet into the future, we can't continue doing so in the way that we have been if we are to not only sustain mullet pops, but each of the other species also. Tailor are in diabolical trouble and I firmly believe that it is the mullet nets contributing to the problem to the greatest degree through alterations to tailor spawning migration behavioural dynamics. There is significant evidence to support this claim.

Whiting on the other hand seem to be doing just fine and this isn't surprising when their predators are diminishing in number. Mullet are potential benefactors of 'predator release' also. But we need the predators for all sorts of reasons and if we somehow manage to resurrect their numbers, then we'd have to reduce the fishing pressure on whiting and mullet anyway because of the increased natural mortality rates. Unfortunately we'll never resurrect predatory species pops while we're netting mullet and other inshore species in the manner that we are currently, but that's a problem that has the same remedy as required for the other species - strategically located net free regions. It's all about balance, and at this point in time we are nowhere near attaining any sort of balanced approach to fishery management in Queensland.

manta man

30-05-2013, 06:39 AM

Well your right about the Netters, they keep tabs on the Mullet "Day and Night". Soon as opportunity arises they pounce. Slider mentions depending on the size of the School the Netters will "Combine for a Total Clean Out" of the school which is true. Quite a common occurrence from Noosa River to Inskip Point and any other locations for that matter. I for one have absolutley no time for this type of practice, and slowly but surely the numbers and average size are actually dwinderling MMM... i wonder why.
You keep taking 10,20,50 Tonne of Fish from different locations, which are in Prime Breeding Condition (Refer Thread 15/07/2012.) what would you think is going to happen over time. Oh and those Trawlers you see off the Beach are"nt interested in that Species. But will communicate with the Beach Netters if they see something. I know we all need to make a quid, but fair dinkum if you think this type of practice is viable your a (Dead Set Half Wit) Oh and if you don"t appreciate that comment mmm... sorry.

nigelr

30-05-2013, 07:04 AM

Unfortunately, as we probably mostly know, so much is based on politics, rather than science.....

MudRiverDan

30-05-2013, 08:24 AM

Slider --

Interesting that Terns are associated with Tailor, and of course to many Tailor fisherman a flock of Gulls or Terns is the best way to spot a feeding school.

It's interesting because yesterday I was at Boggy Creek Mouth-Brisbane River, and the Terns were there (The black capped ones with the pointed beak).
A flock of them flew out in the water in front of me and some even did a few sky dives into the water (obviously feeding).

I hooked two Tailor about 45cm and 50cm in that short time and three more in the following hour.

So as I watched the flock hit the air and started to make a lot of noise and started feeding, it of course became apparent to me that they were feeding off the same fish as the Tailor.

What these bait fish were?.. I never really got a look, but did cast net some Herring and mullet earlier, so assumed it was herring and mullet they were after but i was not 100% sure as there are always herring and mullet around without Tailor and Terns, so it could have just as easily been another type of bait fish.

Though it became obvious to me that the Terns need the Tailor to increase their hunt, I again am not sure how they do this but I do know that some birds benefit from the fish being rounded up by bigger fish, and distressed so that they become easy pickings from the sky, and of course injured fish and other fish pieces not eaten by the bigger fish become a meal for the birds.

So really without the bait fish then you will not get this symbiotic interaction.
I guess the same could be said if there was no Tailor?

Dan

Noelm

30-05-2013, 09:24 AM

Those black headed Terns (Hooded Tern) usually only eat very small bait fish or scraps, chances are there was tiny Whitebait sized "stuff" that the Tailor were feedng on, and the Terns were just picking up the scraps.

Slider

30-05-2013, 11:33 AM

Find the birds working and you've found the fish - we all know that.

They could just as easily be crested or common terns Noel, but it doesn't matter as the point is that terns of all variety (some more than others) are heavily reliant on predatory fish species such as tailor, mackerels, tunas, queenfish, large dart, trevs etc as well as dolphins to herd the baitfish to the water's surface. No predatory fish, then the bait stays deep where the seabirds can't get them.
We know that crested terns (resident) in particular are heavily reliant on tailor, trevs, dart and aus salmon and migratory terns ( common, little and white winged) are heavily reliant on the mackerels and tunas. It is known that each seabird species has a preference for feeding over a particular type of predatory fish species or dolphin.

Therefore, if the tailor, dart, trevs, salmon and mackerels and tunas are being spooked by mullet nets as I would say is definitely the case and altering migrations away from the coast or areas of high food value or traditional roosting grounds, then shore based terns (as they all are) need to fly further each fishing trip to find a feed. Not only do they need to fly further, they can't rest on a nearby beach in between fishing trips and have multiple trips per day which is of particular value for feeding chicks. Compounding this is the low populations levels of tailor and dart and possibly/probably mackerels, some tunas, trevs etc which requires the terns to spend more time searching for food.

Note: Little terns - which are listed on Qld's endangered list of species - no longer nest in Queenland, but used to. Nobody knows why they don't anymore. I'd hazard a guess.
Each of the migratories are protected by international treaties which Australia has signed and any activity that compromise the sustainability of their populations is required to be addressed. Bet we don't, but maybe we could allow shooting groups into national parks where they inhabit for a bit of good healthy fun for the tourists.

So apart from creating all sorts of havoc for fish species such as tailor, dart, trevs and bream along with mackerels, tunas, threadfin, barra, - any species netted inshore - and making inshore angling a great deal less productive, mullet netting is having an indirect and negative impact (a remote predatory or non - consumptive effect) on tern populations as well as australasian gannets.

Seagulls are just scavengers and their population is going through the roof.

mattooty

30-05-2013, 03:43 PM

Alot of things you say make a huge amount of sense Slider, but then you drop strange insinuations like "but maybe we could allow shooting groups into national parks where they inhabit for a bit of good healthy fun for the tourists." that completely blows your credibility with myself. Why would the destruction of feral animals by gunfire, be worse than a feral's continued existence in said National Park?
Having a Masters Degree in Enviro-science, I read most of what you preach as heresay and assumptions, due to the huge amount of emotive language and stabs in the dark at things like hazarding guesses at fish populations with no evidence or lumping all of the marine worlds problems (Little Terns nesting sites) in with your own agenda.
I used to read your posts wide eyed and gripped when you used scientific evidence to back up your speculations but you've moved away from it, allowing yourself a bit of freedom with your post content.

MudRiverDan

30-05-2013, 03:52 PM

Yes Mattooty he also side stepped the bait-fish question.
I am yet to be convinced that "spooking" is going to "spook" schools from food.
Having trolled Sydney harbour in my younger days for Tailor, and seeing the amount of activity within the harbour at the time, IMO Tailor do not seem like a fish that will be "spooked" when there is a good feed to be had.
As for the National parks shooters yes well thats another story, yet from what I have seen the guys have good scopes and would not shoot anyone having a bushwalk. :P
I believe it is regulated to a time of park closure to the public, or was deemed to be.

Dan

mattooty

30-05-2013, 04:17 PM

Slider

30-05-2013, 07:40 PM

Didn't know I was side stepping a question it looked like you were asking yourself Dan, but they may have been anchovy, sardine, gar, herring, poddies - couldn't say and it's not important. The important bit is the reliance that the terns have on the tailor for whatever baitfish they were.
Tailor are a species that spooks readily as any experienced slug thrower would know. They will leave food in an instant if they believe there is sufficient threat - and nets are quite obviously the largest threat that can present. Like all animals, fish assess risk and weigh up the risks of feeding while a potential predator is nearby against fleeing and missing the feed. Any animal that doesn't function in this way becomes extinct. Is a mountain of research in this field and particularly in relation to growth rates of bold fish that take greater risks and grow fast but have a high natural or fishing mortality rate.

My apologies Mattooty if I've used a poor example of how the general attitude of this government to conservation seems a bit .... well, non - existent. I would have preferred to use the example of reopening a closed region of the Burnett to netting but it didn't really fit the circumstance. I accept what you're saying re feral animals - providing that is the only shooting going on in our national parks.
I have provided evidence for my argument re mullet netting with graphs of commercial catch data in my region of Cooloola/Fraser and correlations with other species and terns and a general explanation of those scenarios. I can provide research papers for the link between pred fish and seabirds if required. I can provide endless evidence of antipredator responses adopted by fish and the alarm cues that trigger these responses. I can provide endless evidence of altered growth rates in harvested species such as the one that tailor have undergone and the reasons why. I can provide further graphs of catch data of other inshore species in my region and all the scenarios that present in those graphs. I could write about our commercial management practices and how they encourage a 'race to fish' which is well known to unexpectedly collapse fisheries and I can put forward theories on why little terns no longer nest in Qld that are as good and likely as any other proffered to date - perhaps better given that I have evidence to support mine. Whatever aspect you would like me to provide evidence for, I can do it. But it all takes time and effort and why is it that I should be required to produce all this evidence when FQ merely have to state that "the fishery is sustainable" and we should then be satisfied with that when experienced and highly skilled anglers all along our coastline are adamant that their individual fisheries are depleted to unacceptable levels. The K8 netters agree with me that this particular fishery is collapsing - they're doing it tough and prospects for their future are grim. The catch data reflects all of our concerns but the same catch data viewed by someone at FQ seems to be all good.

Happy to stick to facts and figures. More than happy to support my arguments with evidence. But not prepared to write a thesis here which would be required to lay all the facts and figures out. Perhaps you guys can find fault with the theory - give me some reasons why the things I'm saying are happening, can't happen and I'll provide the evidence as to why they can.

Also - don't misunderstand my intentions. I want our commercial fishery to be flourishing with local fish being supplied to local and export markets by wealthy fishermen who can fish for the term of his working life with security that the fish will still be there when he retires.

Slider

30-05-2013, 08:58 PM

Some graphs of commercial tailor data - Cooloola & Fraser.

W32 - northern Fraser
W34 - southern Fraser & northern Cooloola
W35 - southern Cooloola

nathank

30-05-2013, 10:44 PM

NorthC

30-05-2013, 11:26 PM

Here's what the government has to say about threats to (and recovery of) the little tern.

Threatening processes
Threats known to affect little terns include both natural and human related factors. As little terns nest near the high tide line, occasionally their nests are inundated by king tides. Nests can also be flooded by freshwater run-off following very heavy rain events (depending on the area where the nests are located). Little tern nests may fail as a result of strong wind which can blow loose sand and cover either eggs or small chicks. Other factors affecting little tern reproduction include predation of eggs and chicks. Natural predators include silver gulls, gull-billed terns and torresian crows. Introduced predators known to have an impact on terns include red foxes, wild dogs, feral cats and black rats.
The recreational activities of people in coastal areas can affect little tern breeding success. These activities include driving on beaches, trail bike riding or walking through colonies. These activities can disturb the terns or crush eggs and chicks. Loss of suitable nesting habitat occurs because of coastal development. Little terns are potentially susceptible to pesticides and contamination of estuaries by oil spills and heavy metals.
Recovery actions

Many major breeding sites in Queensland still need to be identified or verified.
Feral animals, including cats and foxes, need to be controlled at known sites. If you own a dog, avoid walking your dog at sites that are important breeding sites for the little tern.
Education (including signage) at known sites is essential so that visitors are made aware of the impacts of their activities. Drivers of vehicles on beaches are requested to stay clear of nesting areas. If you own a four-wheel drive, reconsider your need to drive on the beach.
Local bird groups can become involved in protecting or maintaining important sites and monitoring bird numbers.
Important sites that are indentified need to be protected from intense development pressures.

mattooty

31-05-2013, 12:08 AM

I am at a loss with my jaw hitting the ground...

So am i understanding properly? You may have to speak/type slowly.. Is there anyone on here as part of the discussion that thinks that beach hauling is ok?? Please put your hands up... All i hear is people saying how rubbish it is.. then there are the "others" the people that are fueling debate and wanting evidence that its not so bad.. Do you even fish?? Why are you on this site?? I don't have a degree in environmental science nor can i put up graphs to support my post, I abide by common sense and practical experience not classroom experience.
We should be discussing how we can put a stop to it. Those who know how, should suggest ways we can, not feel the constant need to defend themselves.

But then what happens when it's banned and we have more threads such as "Snapper $50 a kg" or what about TimD's post about buying 100kg of whole mullet......
It's about finding the balance between these blokes having a livelihood to pay their bills and having a sustainable fishery. It's not just about you having a recreational activity...

nathank

31-05-2013, 01:32 AM

Its a rec fishing site matooty... snapper at 50$ a kilo... who cares mate.. tiimd can do what he wants and in my opinion anyone who needs 100kg of mullet for rec fishing is not a rec fisherman.. livelihood from beach hauling...are you serious?? can you honestly say you believe that it is an income?? you are kidding yourself... i promise you they do not show a profit for tax purposes as a business and if they do i bet they dont get over the mid range tax threshold...sustainable fishery and beach hauling in the same sentence, hang your head in shame mate....

nathank

31-05-2013, 01:35 AM

by the way Snapper at 50$ a kilo.. sounds about right from the rec side of fishing.. include bait, gear,plastics,petrol,maintenance,time,etc... be more like 100$ a kilo.... but as a rec fisho.... thats not really the point is it now...

gruntahunta

31-05-2013, 07:07 AM

manta man

31-05-2013, 08:47 AM

Oh i have a "Degree in Enviro Science" thats just fantastic. I for one, am not interested in what you do or don"t have. Here's a "Couple of Quick Figures" then you can come to your own conclusions. 2010 NTH NSW 8 Week Period Clarence River 262 Tonne, 2012 only a 160 Tonne not a good season they reckon. Anyway lets say 1 fully Roed Mullet carries between 1.5 to about 4.5 million eggs average weight about 1.2 kg. Out of 262 Tonne 40% Females thats approx 176 Billion Eggs. I must say thats really good sustainable figures. Oh and Mr Degree, i suppose your part of the Enviroment Study for the Super Trawler.

Slider

31-05-2013, 08:50 AM

The astounding thing about that write up on little terns is that feeding habits aren't mentioned. This is because the people who wrote it simply didn't, and probably still don't know what their feeding requirements are - which is kind of an important aspect. It took me 5 or more years through constant communication with SEQ's leading tern expert to convince her that terns rely on pred fish and dolphins for their food. Jill had absolutely no idea how terns feed, but knows all about it now and fully supports the knowledge I bring to the table and now writes in some of her survey reports about netting influences on tern counts.
GBRMPA released the first paper ever in Aus in January this year about seabird dependency on predatory fish and expressing concerns about commercial fishing impacts. I have a research paper from Long Island NY published in the late 80s re common tern dependency on bluefish and a string of similar papers dealing with different seabird, fish and dolphin species that have been published since - we should have switched on in Aus much earlier.
Little terns still nest in NSW and they have all of the listed threats that Qld has. There has also been a different approach to fishery management in NSW that I can only see being of benefit to the health of terns and which we would do well to learn from - from several different perspectives.

Something I have observed that is relevent to the entire discussion - living at Teewah I am watching the surf every day, looking for birds working, fish in waves, surface feeding fish, dolphins - anything that moves. I used to see terns roosting on the beach and generally there'd be a flock feeding over pelagics within eyesight of the resting/roosting terns. Then all of a sudden, I'd go down the beach of a morning and there'd be no terns anywhere and no fish/dolphin movement anywhere. I would know straight away that a net has been shot and investigations virtually always confirmed that a net had indeed been shot. The fish have been spooked and evacuated and the terns have to follow them in order to feed. It is as simple as that.
The last 4 years, I have hardly sighted feeding terns at all and never during winter. 20 years ago you could hardly cast a rod at times without collecting a crested tern in winter.

I have agonised for years about how we can have a sustainable mullet fishery and still conserve species. I am confident now that there is a method that can keep the mullet fishers happy, rec fishers happy and our ecosystems in some sort of shape for the future. Many of the mullet fishers support the plan I've devised for this region of netting the mullet inside the estuary mouths where they school and hold prior to exiting the mouth to spawn and leave the open beaches for recreational angling. This would prevent migration alteration by the predatory species like tailor and allow their favoured feeding and breeding grounds to be fully utilised and high recruitment to result. Dependent species of seabird, dolphin, shark and perhaps turtles would be indirect beneficiaries of a return to the evolved spatial dynamics of fish. We can't have net free regions everywhere, but we do need to develop a strategic system of net free regions along our coastline that consider the species and industries we are trying to preserve. One such industry is recreational fishing which is steadily losing local participants and international fishing tourists are far more likely to go to Florida than come to Qld becasue there are fish to be caught in the recovered Florida fishery following net bans which is now worth over $1 billion p.a. from recreational fishing alone. Existing examples from Australia and around the world such as Florida, Sthrn Californian Bight, NSW where net free regions have been established, universally have seen (scientific studies) improved recreational catches in size and number and improved commercial yields and viability. But how can it be that a reduced commercial fleet with less territory to work catches more fish than before? Because fish are able to utilise feeding and breeding grounds rather than be chased around the ocean by nets. They can produce healthy fast growing offspring that can grow bigger and produce healthier faster growing offspring. No mysteries in any of this - basic fishery management. But we are approaching fishery management with the school of thought that fish are stupid benign animals that can't learn and react to danger. That they'll just keep coming back to the places where tens of thousands of tonnes of their ancestors have perished. Fish aren't that stupid and there is monumental evidence of a fish's learning capacity - which isn't amazing, it's no different to what we see on David Attenborough all the time on terrestrial animals. In actual fact, "The Blue Planet" has extraordinarily clear footage of many of the attributes that fish, sharks, whales and seabirds have that I am talking about.

T

manta man

31-05-2013, 08:57 AM

Oh i forgot to mention what happens to the Roe MMM...well some of it anyway . It"s actually used as a "Traditional Chinese Gift" to the Bride and Groom on there Wedding Day. Ah nothing like a bit of Good Old Mullet Roe in the Honeymoon Suite. Nice..

lbger

31-05-2013, 10:39 AM

I agree with Mattooty, I think Nathank is only commenting from his needs and wants and does not understand how business works. Most successful businesses will not show a huge profit, that's how it is done, I am thinking maybe you are a labor voter, lol.

Do you know more mullet are used by rec fishers than for other needs, have you ever bought or used mullet for bait. If the answer is yes then you don't have an argument against this legal activity, if you do then you are being hypocritical.

What's the difference between netting tonnes of prawns and netting tons of mullet, both legal and both governed by sustainability findings and research..

I'm a labour voter and successful business's don't show huge profits.. wow, you are special mate. If i use mullet it's a few in a cast net for livies when chasing jacks, the ones that don't get eaten go back in alive.
So you are saying that you think beach hauling spawning fish on their annual run is ok then and you have no problem, as a rec fisher, with it... Cool then... good for you mate.

lbger

31-05-2013, 10:45 AM

By the way if you run a "successful" business and don't show decent profits how do you get bigger lines of credit as part of an expansion process?

MudRiverDan

31-05-2013, 01:43 PM

Hunting in National Parks is a whole seperate debate. A really good one mind you (and yes I'm an avid hunter), but not relevant to the discussion at hand.....
I just like to see a bit of evidence to support a theory, even if it is only a personal theory. You know, as does the rest of the scientific community. Especially in an instance such as this, it needs to be undertaken by a non-biased researcher.

Well without going off on a tangent as the fish net info here is very interesting, but I was led to believe the hunting in national parks was to get rid of feral animals.
And the parks would be closed at this time.
IMO a skilled hunter can shoot a few ferals goats, pigs, fox, or whatnot and pretty well leave the area without anyone even known he/she was there.
I remember as a kid we would be in the hills and hear gunfire all the time, but we were safe as houses.
In general there is a lot to be said for responsible skilled hunters, and little to be said for cowboys.

Dan

MudRiverDan

31-05-2013, 01:46 PM

which isn't amazing, it's no different to what we see on David Attenborough all the time on terrestrial animals. In actual fact, "The Blue Planet" has extraordinarily clear footage of many of the attributes that fish, sharks, whales and seabirds have that I am talking about.
T

I am going to get the box set of all series one day.
I still see things on those shows that I never even knew existed.

Dan

nigelr

31-05-2013, 05:13 PM

Lol, oh, so if you don't 'show' your profit, you are 'hiding' it? And why would that be?
Might be a job for you, CEO of one of the major banks, maybe they'd like to 'hide' a little of their multi-billion $ profit in these 'troubled' times?:-X;)

mhilton

31-05-2013, 06:24 PM

they did the same thing last saturday morning on mooloolaba beach

gruntahunta

31-05-2013, 10:38 PM

Lolololololol. ...just use a bit of good old fashioned bait and in they come spinner....you probably support NSW as well....suppose I won't get a bite this time ....unless he des support Nsw of course, which would explain why he bit so hard the first time.

I DON'T have a problem with legal netting by the way.

Da-Jew-Man

01-06-2013, 05:15 AM

Chanlo

01-06-2013, 03:42 PM

Off topic but who runs business without profit? You'd be wasting your time by not making a profit.

What I don't like about professional fisherman is they don't seem to be putting anything back into the environment. My mates timber mill for example cuts down trees and replants trees in there place creating a new set of trees in the future to cutdown. I don't know but what do professional fisherman contribute? Are they restocking or are they gambling on nature doing this?

samson

01-06-2013, 05:08 PM

Boat hog 2

01-06-2013, 05:16 PM

Scalem

01-06-2013, 06:28 PM

Hmmm Gruntahunta

I wonder if you would have a problem if your fishing area was netted out. We might see a different attitude.
Unless of course you are a pro-fisherman or affiliated with one.
Or is this a stupid post!!!!!!!!!!
LOL

Question - upon arriving at a stretch of beach how does one determine that Mullet is "netted out?" Do you go in and have a look? Or is it a deduction one comes to directly as a result of an inability to catch fish known to prey on Mullet as a natural food source?? Nothing to do with recent heavy rains in the area at the time or known declining water quality as a result.... Bingo, the loaded gun had to be pointed in some direction to blame a single reason for a sudden decline in fish numbers in the area. All I am saying is to be careful to point the finger in any one direction, netters or other. There are many ingredients to why you can or cannot catch fish at any particular point in time.

Scalem

Chanlo

01-06-2013, 06:32 PM

Commercial guys contribute a compulsory $600 for conservation and research of the fishery onto of their usual licence fees in nsw, they don't get a choice if you don't you don't fish it makes the $25 rec fee pale in comparison.

$600 is nothing in comparison to what they make in a year and how many fish they took. If we worked out how many fish we take and divide it by the fishing licence fee we would be paying a lot more per fish than the pros would.

I havent asked him but i bet my mates timber mill would spend more than that a year on forget regeneration.

Slider

01-06-2013, 06:52 PM

A fair chunk of the $600 research levy in NSW is probably going towards improving gear and vessel technology so that more fish can be caught - says the cynic in me.

Part of the problem we have is that there is no incentive for commercial fishers to have a sense of stewardship for their local area. Even if they wanted to be more proactive in maintaining stocks for their own and children's future fishing prosperity by selectively harvesting, they'd be doing so at significant personal expense. The structure of our fisheries is such that the greatest incentive that exists, is for fishers is to catch the fish before someone else, local or from another region, gets to them first. They're not going to drive past a school of snubbies, for example, cause the chances are another pro will net them an hour later for the $5 per kg they get for them so they may as well take what they can get when it presents. Known as 'the race to fish', such a structure that our commercial fleet operates under is well known to cause unexpected fishery collapses due to the reschooling nature of fishes and hyperstability. Licences need to be zonal and competition within zones reduced before a sense of stewardship has any chance of being enacted upon.

I've spoken to quite a few of the K8 and N1 fishers from Caloundra to Cooloola and they are in the main very concerned about the quite obvious lack of fish in this region and do want to see a reduction in fishing pressure. According to these guys there are quite a number of commercial guys who desperately want out, but have no avenue out and therefore have to keep netting as many fish as possible from a depleting fishery to pay the bills and to enhance their licence's value if there is a buy out at any stage.
They're not bad people because they need to pay the bills and secure their future. For most of them there is no other way for them to earn a crust - fishing is all they know.
While many of us may not like what they do, we need to be mindful that when most of them started fishing decades ago, none of us thought that we'd see stocks plummet the way they have over the last decade. Especially when we have the best managed fisheries in the world and the comfort of knowing that if a problem should surface with fish pops, that something will be done about it.

Or perhaps not as it turns out to the disgust of all concerned.

Zero reduction in fishing pressure in this region and insufficient reduction state wide despite the fact that basic fishery management states that effort reduction must occur within a fishery due to effort creep and the increased fishing pressure that obviously comes with that. Increased recreational pressure is also a very significant factor but bag and size limits for surf species are way too generous given that there has probably been a 2000% increase in angler numbers on the Sunshine Coast since 1980. Allowing the tailor slaughter to increase in volume at Fraser each year as more and more people went to bring back their 200 tailor each that they freeze to mush, I think is appalling. Now Fraser goers are lucky if they get to the 20 bag at all and the size of the fish is half what they were before the bag limit was introduced. So many things contributing to the decline in our fisheries - is it any wonder we're struggling for a feed these days?

samson

01-06-2013, 07:41 PM

It goes to many things including fish breeding the reason they now know how to breed mulloway so the recs can take full advantage with the restocking program off the back of pro donated fee's, this fee is for line and net fisherman alike and a lot of line caught species the average yearly catch of recs ecliples the pro take significantly, yet recs will always have the blinders on nothing new there, if there is something wrong in the fishery it must always be the pro's it can't be the shoulder to shoulder tailor fisherman on beaches 30 Plus years ago that stretched for kilometer upon kilometer and had no limits nah it wouldn't be that would it or the goat tracks leading to every land based position up and down the coast or the power lines sagging from line and sinkers at every bridge on the east coast of australia nah it wouldn't be that would it.
The mullet beach netters and river netters are two entirely different beasts I agree rivers are no place for nets but sea run mullet are there seasonally and are all but safe most other times of year and is probably the most sustainable fishery of it's kind in the world recs included.
If you want to talk sea birds go talk to the the guys that pull hooks out of them daily up rivers they aren't swallowing nets every day it's the line and hook fisherman that take out the majority of sea life.

GABBA110360

01-06-2013, 07:45 PM

I haven't seen a post on this thread that says i'm not going fishing tomorrow because I already have fish in the freezer to eat.
it's too easy to blame the pro's for the decline in fish stocks because they are easily identified.
i'm going fishing at daylight in the morning but if I don't get anything ive got a feed in the freezer for Monday night.

Chanlo

01-06-2013, 08:43 PM

Who catches their bag limit? Who practices catch and release?

I used to fish the solitary islands here in Coffs Harbour a few years ago. I was told by a local that kingfish were at the islands, I caught about 30 in a year keeping maximum 10. I only kept what I would eat in a week because I knew I'd get ore fish next weekend. (Not just kingfish) I had some cracker sessions but I turned up one day and two long line boats were hauling into the esky all sizes of kingfish. After that day I had not caught a kingfish in 5 trips before I got a couple of undersized fish. I haven't been back for two years now. By all accounts a few have been hooked off the islands this year.

How much would they have got at market vs how much would i or anyone else would have spent on fuel, ice, food, jigs, bait, line, reels or rods during the years I didn't fish for them? $7 on ice, $20 on fuel, $20 on lures, bait, leader and that's just me not the deckie.

How is it sustainable when it takes over two years or population recover?

That's my limited experience.

Noelm

01-06-2013, 08:54 PM

Longline boats? Kingfish? I think you might need spec savers.

Chanlo

01-06-2013, 09:19 PM

They were pulling in massive lines with multiple hooks and kingfish on the hooks, unhooking throwing them into big tubs. I assumed they were long liners

Edit:
I know they were kingfish cause we were working the same school before they moved in. When I saw moved I mean drove straight over surface chopping kingfish sending them down deep.

samson

01-06-2013, 10:09 PM

Yeah those guys down that way chase bonito on those rigs with six hooks around the islands I think you were mistaken I know one of those guys, but I guess they wiped out the kings too because they were pro's right gotta love it.

Chanlo

01-06-2013, 11:26 PM

They weren't pulling in bonito that day the boat was close enough I could see the kingfish. There was two boats doing it also.

Da-Jew-Man

02-06-2013, 07:39 AM

Hi Scalem,
Agree with you that there are many conditions that can cause a decline in catch numbers.
However I have been lucky (or unlucky) enough to experience fishing before and after netting under exactly the same conditions.
I found that the beach became a "desert".
Slider has stated in posts some time ago that the "desert" extended for some distance either side of the netting area. I agree with this and found that the distance was about 2 klms and the further you went the fishing slowly got better.
The actual gutter where the mullet was netted was empty of all fish.
I have verified this. Now if the netters have been on the beach I put away the gear.

Let me state again that my beef is that mullet are the bottom of the food chain for Tailor,Bream,Jewies and Mackerel. If we continue to attack the bottom of the food chain then the above will be affected. Look at the Tailor and Jew seasons over the last couple of years in Northern NSW.( Forget about the soapies which most certainly came form restocking.)
If the mullet are allowed to spawn and then netted then isn't this sustainability. But we all know the netters are there for the rowe for overseas.
This is wrong.

Samson - Don't forget that recfishers pay an annual license fee also which goes to restocking.

Also just to add how many recfishers go out today and bring home "bag"catches of fish. Most are happy to get a couple.
I myself just love "sand between the toes" and catching some fish. Most I let go, ocassionally I will keep 1 or 2 That's about it.

BLOOEY

02-06-2013, 07:57 AM

Is there a way to find out where the nets have been shot? This would save me alot of time,money and dissapointment. I dont live near the beach and to go to the trouble of organising a trip , finding suitable water (can take the best part of a day) only to then find that it has just happened sucks. Purely selfish question, but? Ben

Slider

02-06-2013, 09:19 AM

Not possible Ben unfortunately. Over the years I've tried to fish as far away from any netting activity as possible but have continually come unstuck as there isn't really anywhere along our inshore coastline during the mullet season that isn't netted and when nets are shot unpredictable. I reckon about 80% of my trips to Sandy Cape over the last 10 - 15 years have been net affected. Is not very amusing to drive all the way to there and find that ol mate is already there. Happened again in April. Rum disappears real fast on those trips. I recall one trip in April 2004 when a mate and I were there the week leading up to Anzac Day long weekend - was gt, queenies and goldens in good numbers and we were having a ball. Net turned up on the Thursday and instantaneous shut down. Campers turned up on the Friday and 2 toadfish was the total caught by dozens of anglers over the weekend. See it time and time again.

As to whether netting is causing depletions or other factors such as water quality are responsible, is a fair point, but one that I don't believe holds any substance. If water quality issue were predominantly to blame, then why is it that in locations where netting has been banned, but angling allowed, the fish come back bigger and in greater numbers within the first few years of the ban?
With stricter controls on industrial and urban runoff and bans on harmful ecosystem destroying chemicals etc having been in place for decades in Australia, we should be seeing significant improvements in fisheries everywhere whether netted or not, but this hasn't happened and the reverse is true in the main. And even if water quality issues are responsible, we're not going to be able to rectify the situation in a time frame sufficient to recover depleted stocks.
High rainfall and floods are known to boost mullet and other species' recruitment and yields and drought known to adversely affect recruitment and yeilds. So it's a bit scary that yields in this region for all species have hit the floor in 2011/12 when they should be going through the roof. Doesn't bide well for the forthcoming drought.

Da-Jew-Man

02-06-2013, 01:22 PM

Hi Blooey,
Very hard unless you are fishing the same beach over extended time, or you know someone who either lives in the area or walks the beach.
On beaches where 4wd are not permitted if I see tracks then I am worried however this can be other than netters.
When the mullet start to run you usually see their 4wd's in the area either on the beaches or associated roads.
I have noticed here that fellow Ausfishers have posted when netters have been active and I think this would be great if they could notify as soon as they see them.
Will certainly save a lot of time and disappointment.

nigelr

02-06-2013, 01:54 PM

Good idea for a thread Da-Jew-Man......

BLOOEY

02-06-2013, 03:26 PM

Yep the tracks on non 4wd beaches always makes me wonder what has gone on. Yeah nigelr good idea. Ben

samson

02-06-2013, 04:22 PM

The funny thing is on this fishing site alone they would keep probably at least three mullet net licences in business alone in mullet sales before the roe and general public sales even gets a look in that's how vital it is to rec's I'd be very surprised if you're gonna get much support other than the guys that mainly lure fish to stop a vital part of the fishery for recs and pro's alike.

Slider

02-06-2013, 05:25 PM

Just glancing through the logged on members and there's a lot of names there that I don't recognise and who probably haven't read my explanations of 'spooking' in relation to nets before. Here's a very brief one.

Spooking refers to fish being frightened away from an area by human activity - adopting anti-predator behaviour. Whether that be by nets or noise in boats, car doors slamming on a quiet beach, the fish sighting the angler or being put off by a presented bait/lure/fly, fish being dropped (lost after hook up) by an angler, the sound of commercial vessels or its gear (very well documented), the sound of recreational vessels etc.

In recreational fishing, spooking is generally applicable to single fish being targeted, a few fish hanging together or perhaps an entire school in some circumstances. But nets are far more threatening to fish than anything else and they know all about their greatest predator. Any sign of a net and they will adopt a risk assessment which usually results in an anti-predator response. The signs that indicate the presence of a net can be the sound or sight of the vessel or gear, or alarm signals emitted by fish within the net.

Most fish have the ability to vocalise. Fish when trapped in a net, or in the jaws of a predator, emit alarm vocalisations that warns fish nearby that there is a predator/net in the vicinity. Sound in water travels at 5 times that which it does in air and is a common medium for aquatic animals to use. Everyone knows about the high frequency vocalisations of dolphins and whales, well fish vocalisations are similar but at lower frequency and can be heard through hydrophones just as cetacean vocs can be. Each species of fish that has the ability to vocalise has a vocalisation that is unique to their species just like birds. Fish vocalisations can be heard by other fish and hydrophones up to kms away depending on vocalising and hearing ability of the species involved.

The most powerful alarm signal emitted by fish is schreckstoff, which is known as a chemical alarm cue (signal). Schreckstoff is the slimy coating that all fish possess. It is believed all aquatic organisms possess schreckstoff. The release of schreckstoff only occurs upon damage to the skin of the fish and therefore is a certain indicator of a predator actually predating on a fish. Fish trapped in a net and rubbing against each other and the net, releases huge quantities of schreckstoff. 1 square cm of skin extract (schreckstoff) put in a 57000 litre tank will prompt anti-predator behaviour by fish within the tank every time. It is powerful stuff that can warn fish moving into an area that predation has taken place up to a week after the predation/netting depending on species, environment, weather and ocean conditions or haul size. The higher the concentration of schreckstoff, the more dire is the warning.
Another chemical alarm cue emitted by panicked fish is called a disturbance cue. This is a urinary expulsion of ammonia which is a common trait amongst all sorts of marine and terrestrial taxa. Not as powerful as schreckstoff and is believed to be like a 'confirmation of danger' alarm cue when in association with other alarm cues.
Then there is visual alarm which is the sight of fish displaying anti-predator behaviour of fleeing, freezing or hiding from a predator. Fish nearby a net that flee will swim past other fish and these other fish receive the visual warning about the net/predator if they haven't already smelt the schreckstoff or heard alarm vocalisations.
Note: fleeing, freezing or hiding are the options available to fish to avoid predators (anti-predator response). Fish in structured habitats like reef, estuary, lake, can choose any of the 3 options and is often species dependent as to which is utilised. Fish in open sandy habitats will have found through evolution that freezing or hiding is generally uncuccessful and particularly so as they've evolved anti-predator responses to nets. Fleeing is the go where the ocean haul fishery is concerned.

Combinations of alarm cues prompt more animated antipredator responses than does a single type of alarm cue on its own. Netting causes all alarm cues to be present and strong anti-predator responses,

Each species of fish will react to alarm cues emitted by conspecifics (same species) and heterospecifics (other species) if they belong to the same prey guild - ie having a common predator (net in this instance).

Effectively what that means is that any fish that is taken by a particular style of netting, or netting that is proximate to where a species has a relatively recent history of being netted, can be spooked by a net irrespective of what species is in the net. Baitfish like anchovy and sardine for instance aren't spooked by beach seine because they don't have any history of being netted in the area or by a net that makes the sounds and produces the schreckstoff from species that are netted by beach seine. They hear and smell the alarm cues, but don't have an association of trauma with these cues and risk assessment tells them that there is no need for an anti-predator response.

Fleeing nets takes fish away from whatever it was that brought them to the region in the first place - food/spawning. Being somewhere other than their preferred feeding/spawning ground means that they may be eating less, or less nutricious prey and spawning in localities that don't promote maximum fertilisation of eggs or larval survival. When the majority of our inshore species are taken whilst on spawning migrations or when aggregated for spawning, this isn't helpful and is believed to contribute to mortality levels as high as the harvest itself through poor egg fertilisation and larval mortality. Known as a non-consumptive effect, or remote predatory effect, there is quite a deal of research that has been dedicated to this field. Growth rates and fecundity are often adversely affected in harvested species with smaller size at age being attained in less than 5 generations. Tailor are growing slower and attaining a smaller size at maturity than they were in the 70s which is a typical indication of overfishing.

As mentioned - a very brief explanation which leaves out massive relevent detail. Happy to answer any questions.

Noelm

03-06-2013, 09:05 AM

sooo, how does this "spooking"explain schools of Mullet traveling the same beach an hour after a "shot" has been done? by your theories and what others have said, the beach should be a fish "desert" for 2K either side of a Mullet haul for weeks later! Also not 100% sure what the difference in fish being netted is to schools of bait fish being attacked by (say) Tailor, danger is danger, yes/no? Mullet discussion come up every year at this time, Mullet "travel" or migrate from the rivers this time of the year, they start way down south NSW and the same thing in QLD, it has gone on forever, not exactly sure where they go, because you wouldn't think the ones from southern NSW would go that far north, or would they? you never see them going north to south!! (like people I guess) Kind of doubt a handfull of Ausfishers buying a couple hundred KG of Mullet for bait would sustain a couple of licences.

mattooty

03-06-2013, 10:26 AM

Hi Scalem,

The actual gutter where the mullet was netted was empty of all fish.
I have verified this. Now if the netters have been on the beach I put away the gear.
........
Look at the Tailor and Jew seasons over the last couple of years in Northern NSW.( Forget about the soapies which most certainly came form restocking.)
.......
I myself just love "sand between the toes" and catching some fish. Most I let go, ocassionally I will keep 1 or 2 That's about it.

I'm not sure what Jew season you fished in Northern NSW but I had a blinder last year, as did most of the other jew blokes. Just the fish I kept my ear to the ground on there would have been over a dozen fish nudging 30kg, with numerous 10-25kg fish. Most fish released that I caught (river caught fish = easily released).

How did you verify that the gutter was empty of fish? Jump in with a mask and snorkel and do a finfish survey? Or simply that you didn't catch fish and subsequently it's someone else's fault...

Noelm, about 40% of netted mullet goes through the bait industry.

Noelm

03-06-2013, 12:31 PM

I am sure that is correct, BUT, the post said that "thing is on this fishing site alone they would keep probably at least three mullet net licences in business alone in mullet sales before the roe and general public sales " not even close to the mark (in my opinion) I guess we could all go and cast net 100Kg of Mullet each, but then, is that any better than getting a commercial quantity when the whole rec numbers are added up?

samson

03-06-2013, 12:52 PM

Some of the netters I know would be lucky to do 5 tonne a year their part timers I know from me alone I use 2 tonne of fillet a year by myself without taking into account other net caught species like pilchards,gar,yakkas,slimeys,pike,cuttlefish and squid I alone could keep one in business especially one I'm thinking about on the tweed that's without the tonnes of fillets and whole fish I know guys on this site use.

Noelm

03-06-2013, 01:00 PM

2 tonne of Mullet a year for bait??? Jesus, what do you do, throw the frozen fillets at the fish to knock them out? thats 40KG of bait EVERY week, and thats without (as you said) Pilchards, Squid and other stuff, so lets say this is 100% true, where would you get your bait if the Mullet netting was stopped tomorrow? Pilchards, Squid?? and how would that be any better for the food chain? I don't see it myself.

samson

03-06-2013, 01:07 PM

Mate I'm commercial line fisherman I cut through shit loads of bait I do on average about 50 plus extended trips for 4 days a year without taking into account local day and overnight work it's just a running expense and I catch a lot of my own bait but generally it's cheaper to buy bait frozen or bulk fresh and sell my own because I get a more premium price, mullets cheap and nasty and does the job, I just bought 1.8 tonne of fillet at $2 kg packed and processed.

Noelm

03-06-2013, 01:12 PM

OH, OK, so you are a commercial operator!! but as I said, "IF" Mullet netting was dumped tomorrow, is getting another source of bait going to be any different? well... except for afew beach fisherman that seem to think beach netting turns any beach into a barren waste land for weeks, I cant see it being any different to what we have now, we are just sawpping Mullet for Prawns, Squid or Pilchards or something.

samson

03-06-2013, 01:36 PM

No it's only going to put more pressure on a resource that won't cope anywhere near as good as mullet does,before mullet for me I was using a lot more tuna, yakkas,squid and pilchards but seeing how I can get double of triple the money for some those species that i catch business wise it's not wise to use them anymore as much and use mullet which for all parties concerned is a smart cheap and viable alternative.

manta man

03-06-2013, 01:41 PM

Hey Samson as a young bloke, i spent about 3 Years Reef Line Fishing from DIPoint to say Bundy. Not sure if you'll answer this, but if your catching Whole Schnapps you would"nt get anymore than say $9 a KG Whole. Cheers Manta Man

samson

03-06-2013, 01:52 PM

For years I was I getting $6 but about ten years ago till now it's been Steady at around $9.50 kg but new Zealand snapper that's imported gets over $12 which has a better recovery on the fillet but it would be good to see a mark up for local stuff which is due,mind you I don't spend anywhere as much time chasing snapper anymore most shops don't like it they much prefer gold band snapper for their money so it's better just to chase a wide variety of species and keep all the punters happy.

Slider

03-06-2013, 05:37 PM

No intent to stop mullet netting from this quarter - just looking for a change to the way we do net them.

Noelm - I've never known a single haul to spook an area for more than a few days to a week. But each haul over the period of the netting season causes its own area avoidance and cumulatively that results in a fairly barren surf that lasts for months here (Noosa Nth Shore) with the intensity of the netting that occurs. There can be windows in between hauls when fish other than mullet can be available but they don't last long as the pros know when these species are due back and they're looking (like I used to) - or a mullet net is shot and a fresh area avoidance starts.

The mullet are different to the surf and ocean going species in that they're based in the estuaries but must exit the estuary to spawn to the north of the estuary - as you know. The pros always have a handle on what schools are coming down the river and when they can be expected to exit. Regs mean that nets can't be shot inside 400m to the north of the mouth and the pros can have a hell of a time getting the mullet to head in that direction initially as the mullet have become very flighty in recent years and shown a tendency to head straight out to sea. Boats are often deployed at the mouth itself to try and herd the schools to the north where they can be legally netted.

The fact that the mullet are in the river when previous hauls are taken means that there's not much they can do about avoiding the nets at the mouth except try and head straight out. They have to spawn and they have to do so to the north of the mouth so will end up there one way or the other. Spawning fish can exit the mouth on consecutive days and hauls can occur on consecutive days, but not of the other species that are 'free ranging' and have the ability to flee. The hauls might be of schools at the mouth or schools way up the beach that have done the loop out to sea and landed back in the surf to spawn - thus the use of spotter planes to see where they land and constant vigilance by the pros in looking for these schools. The mullet wouldn't, I don't expect, land in an area that is laced with schreckstoff and would keep heading north until they feel safe - which in recent years has regularly been in the lagoon on the northern side of Double Island Point, some 60kms from the mouth.

From a rec perspective and trying to find windows in between hauls, it can be very difficult because the mullet keep coming out of the river and are usually netted - to cause an area avoidance. When a window does occur for the other species to be caught at distance to the mouth or if there's greater than a week or so between mullet hauls, the pros are johny on the spot and they'll generally shoot a net for bream, whiting, tarwhine, dart etc in the first 48 hours of the fish returning after the previous mullet haul and this haul causes an area avoidance.

So between the mullet netted at the mouth or to the north where the looping mullet land and the occasional haul of other species, the pros can make a living, but the recs don't really get a crack unless they're particularly lucky to be fishing in a window.

I've watched mullet and tailor flee nets and they tend to flee through the gutters to the north or south of the net in a direction away from the net. They may head straight offshore but I haven't seen that though it is believed that tailor are taking a more offshore migration to avoid inshore fishing pressure. I have seen mullet and tailor fleeing through gutters and have driven to where the net was shot and have readings over 10kms from where the fleeing fish were sighted to the net on several occasions. Therefore it is more than feasible that mullet and perhaps other species can be netted half an hour after a net was shot and while they are fleeing.

I see mullet heading south towards the Noosa every year after they've finished spawning.

Season here looks like it kicked off today though it appears no nets were shot - though I did see small mullet schools this morning north of Teewah that were briefly eyed off.

manta man

03-06-2013, 08:35 PM

Cheers for that samson. Yep just another Smaller Operator being "Squeezed". As for the comments ,i have made on this particular subject . My opinion "Stands" and where all entitled to an opinion. My only Degree is "Common Sense" as a Fisherman, given time, No"s and Size are slowly disappearing in regards to Mullet. You just can"t keep hauling Fish out of the Ocean in that type of "Breeding Capacity" and expect the "Cycle Of Life Continuing For Ever And A Day". Oh and just remember, i"m not just here for myself, it"s for the "Generations To Come". Cheers Manta Man

lbger

04-06-2013, 11:03 AM

Professional fisherman beach hauling to sustain professional line fisherman.. great...

Noelm

04-06-2013, 12:27 PM

So then... what it amounts to is, you don't like Pro fisherman?? because the Pro line fisherman uses exactly the same method that you and I use, same goes for the guy thats aid the Pros caught all the Kingfish, they use the same legal methods that we can all use if we wanted to.

MudRiverDan

04-06-2013, 01:42 PM

Why is this thread turn silly?
Ok, then are buy backs feasible?

I mean why are they not happening to a point?

I have heard that the buybacks don't offer a fair buy back price, just the general tone of things, myself personally do not know a lot about it.

So until people work out what is fair and what is feasible, no one has an aim to reach an objective.

what is on offer?
what is to be gained?
And something I dare say, the increased responsibility of a massive influx of recs if the ideal situation occurred.

Dan

Boat hog 2

04-06-2013, 01:57 PM

Commercial license buy backs are an awesome idea in working towards a total inhalation of the Australian seafood industry.

Decrease in exports. Yep, that's a fantastic way for a country to grow economically.

MudRiverDan

04-06-2013, 02:15 PM

lbger

04-06-2013, 02:17 PM

So you have been lead lining? The preferred method of catching kingies by pro's.. Trolling a lead line with a few hooks baited with squid. Hands up rec fishers who have a lead line?
Trap fishing for Kingies also got banned as it was unsustainable... If you don't think the pros near wiped out the kingfish population, maybe you never fished for them through the late eighties to mid nineties?
Its not that i dont dislike pro's im sure they are nice blokes... I love my fishing and spend a lot of time and money on the sport as do a lot of ppl on this site (being a rec fishing site n all) I hate the blatantly obvious unsustainable practices that are still in place.. have we not learnt our lessons yet?

By the way.. when i was a kid (16) i did work on a pro boat catching kings.. At Montague island Narooma.

Slider

04-06-2013, 02:34 PM

Just to reiterate - the intent of net free regions is to enhance marine ecosystems and protect species into the future, enhance recreational fishing and associated tourism and enhance commercial fishing productivity.
The NSW inshore commercial fleet became more productive following the establishment of 30 recreational fishing havens in 2001 and the buy back of 300 inshore commercial licences. 30 less areas to fish, 300 less licences and productivity goes up - well I'll be buggered. The remaining netters are happy, making money and have security for their family's future. Recs are catching more and bigger fish and tourism is benefitting - at the expense of Queensland. I would also suggest that these rfh's were poorly applied and better results could have been attained.

MudRiverDan

04-06-2013, 02:40 PM

Noelm

04-06-2013, 02:40 PM

Lead lining is perfectly legal for a rec fisherman, and ONE hook is used, not multiple, Kingfish traps have not been in use for christ knows how long, not 100% sure how line fishing is not sustainable, if that's your view, then best pack up your gear, because we all line fish.

Boat hog 2

04-06-2013, 03:09 PM

So a buyback would not help anyone?

Dan

Let's put it this way......for someone so adamant there are no jobs around I would have thought that keeping Australian industry alive would be in your best interests.

License buy backs do nothing but take from one group of stakeholders to give to another for no gain apart from a few wingers getting their way, satisfied in knowing that their needs were greater than another's based on the premise that their cause is far more holier because it's not driven by financial gain.
Elimination is not the answer, management is.

MudRiverDan

04-06-2013, 03:24 PM

Let's put it this way......for someone so adamant there are no jobs around I would have thought that keeping Australian industry alive would be in your best interests.

License buy backs do nothing but take from one group of stakeholders to give to another for no gain apart from a few wingers getting their way, satisfied in knowing that their needs were greater than another's based on the premise that their cause is far more holier because it's not driven by financial gain.
Elimination is not the answer, management is.

If the buyback is fair, then many gain , and many would gain financially.
Get real.
Simply I was asking what is fair?

Are you a net fisherman?
I doubt it, you seem to lack the goods to understand anything I have said.

Dan

lbger

04-06-2013, 04:50 PM

Noelm..we used two sometimes three hooks mate.. i was there, holding the line, bringing in the fish.. Sometimes we even held two lines at once and filled boxes and boxes of fish. Sure we can use a lead line but my point is its not rec fishing (this site is about rec fishing just to remind ya) The traps went in 96 btw.. and their effect were felt for over a decade i would say.. and still the big big fish are mostly absent from the usual haunts in any numbers..

"if that's your view, then best pack up your gear, because we all line fish".... Are you a Pro????

Boat hog 2

04-06-2013, 04:51 PM

If the buyback is fair, then many gain , and many would gain financially.
Get real.
Simply I was asking what is fair?

Are you a net fisherman?
I doubt it, you seem to lack the goods to understand anything I have said.

Dan

Oh! So my understanding is somewhat skewed?
Pots and kettles Dan.

So your solution dedicates that a buy back of commercial licenses is the answer so as long as it is fair.
So a license buy back occurs at a cost to the government and the commercial sector is happy. Sounds great on the surface.
But then the people employed by these commercial operators are unemployed, uncompensated and bitching and moaning they have no money or jobs.
What happens next is that the wholesalers, distributors, transporters and everyone they employ suddenly find themselves without any more business, more people find themselves lined up at centerlink and companys fold due to a now non existent business sector.
What happens now is that consumers find themselves having to buy imported seafood as local products are now a thing of the past.
Let's recap on this very simplistic view of events so far shall we?
Government spends a lot of money to buy licenses back.
Employees of commercial fishermen are made unemployed.
Commercial fishing ceases ( employers of people, payers of tax, consumers of goods and services).
Wholesalers, distributors, transporters and retailers shut up shop, same as above, less jobs, more people unemployed, less consumers of goods and services bla bla bla.....
Consumers buy imported seafood in turn sending their money overseas instead of keeping it here supporting local business.
So when you mentioned fair buyback packages is this what you were referring to? Large scale unemployment, business close down, sending money overseas, reducing consumer spending in retail fishing sector,,, shall I go on?
When a government manages natural assets it is impossible for all concerned parties to be truely satisfied. Paying the needs of a group of stakeholders at the detriment of another's is not feasible nor is it fair but when one group of stakeholders argument is based on the ability to have a bit of fun and enjoy their past time at the detriment of employment, the economy and common sense then this kind of a mind set is just ludicrous.
Like I said before correct management is the only answer, both parties will never be truely satisfied, it's all about compromise.
So who has the misunderstanding now?
Unemployment, sending money overseas, lessening available jobs all so you can catch more fish? Yep, you seem to be a walking contradiction that obviously doesn't seem to understand a lot yourself.
Pots and kettles Dan, and you wish to question MY understanding?

Slider

04-06-2013, 05:03 PM

Dan, there are a couple of guys in the K8 fishery that believe $1.5 mil is what their licence is worth. I doubt that it would be in the community's interest to pay that much and I'd say they're dreamin. Figures that have been bandied around over the years are between $3 & $5 mil for 17xK8 licences which includes a few latent. Of those 17, perhaps half want out and that would leave the guys who want to stay netting and who hopefully can stay netting and make some better coin. I wouldn't know what's fair or proper and it's all hypothetical anyway - not going to be any mullet licences bought out for a while at least. FQ says it's all good and the Minister believes them.

Been plenty of studies done around the world on the value of recreational fishing compared to commercial and rec fishing kills it every time. Areas dedicated to rec fishing would create more jobs than is lost from the commercial sector considering that productivity of the commercial sector can be expected to increase. But sometimes it's not all about jobs now - there's a future to consider which includes that of the netters as well.

How do you manage a fishery that's being overfished Boat Hog?

warti

04-06-2013, 05:50 PM

Boat hog, I would be more supportive of local pros if they managed the local area and we had a sustainable local fishery. Don't you get it-LOCAL. It's bullshit when when you see pros from other parts of Queensland netting the crap out of the local barra fishery. There is no management at all. The gladstone area fishery would be similar to hinchinbrook if it was managed better. A fair few pros here have jobs already in other industries and net/crab purely so they can keep a license & when the seasons are good they just make more MONEY. Why not buy them out and leave the blokes actually doing it for a living. We do need pros, we just need better management.

GABBA110360

04-06-2013, 06:36 PM

I wonder how you guys think the NSW residents feel when QLD mullet crews target NSW beaches legally?
the whole fishery is not just all QLD.
some of us actually live in NSW.
IF YOU DONT LIKE IT GET ON A BOARD OR run for parliament or the likes and do something to change it.
I've seen for years guys standing on the wharf going on about how to fix this and that but at the end of the day they don't put there hand up when someone calls for someone to speak out.
mostly full of crap

MudRiverDan

04-06-2013, 09:10 PM

Oh! So my understanding is somewhat skewed?
Pots and kettles Dan.

So your solution dedicates that a buy back of commercial licenses is the answer so as long as it is fair.
So a license buy back occurs at a cost to the government and the commercial sector is happy. Sounds great on the surface.
But then the people employed by these commercial operators are unemployed, uncompensated and bitching and moaning they have no money or jobs.
What happens next is that the wholesalers, distributors, transporters and everyone they employ suddenly find themselves without any more business, more people find themselves lined up at centerlink and companys fold due to a now non existent business sector.
What happens now is that consumers find themselves having to buy imported seafood as local products are now a thing of the past.
Let's recap on this very simplistic view of events so far shall we?
Government spends a lot of money to buy licenses back.
Employees of commercial fishermen are made unemployed.
Commercial fishing ceases ( employers of people, payers of tax, consumers of goods and services).
Wholesalers, distributors, transporters and retailers shut up shop, same as above, less jobs, more people unemployed, less consumers of goods and services bla bla bla.....
Consumers buy imported seafood in turn sending their money overseas instead of keeping it here supporting local business.
So when you mentioned fair buyback packages is this what you were referring to? Large scale unemployment, business close down, sending money overseas, reducing consumer spending in retail fishing sector,,, shall I go on?
When a government manages natural assets it is impossible for all concerned parties to be truely satisfied. Paying the needs of a group of stakeholders at the detriment of another's is not feasible nor is it fair but when one group of stakeholders argument is based on the ability to have a bit of fun and enjoy their past time at the detriment of employment, the economy and common sense then this kind of a mind set is just ludicrous.
Like I said before correct management is the only answer, both parties will never be truely satisfied, it's all about compromise.
So who has the misunderstanding now?
Unemployment, sending money overseas, lessening available jobs all so you can catch more fish? Yep, you seem to be a walking contradiction that obviously doesn't seem to understand a lot yourself.
Pots and kettles Dan, and you wish to question MY understanding?

If you read what I said, I mentioned that there might be an added management responsibility with an influx of recs and tourists, that is if the ideal buy back occurred.
Sorry mate I don't buy the jobs thing, if it happened gradually it would not be so bad.

How do you know that the net fishing has not put people out of work in other sectors? pots and kettles mate, pots and kettles.
There is a value in rec fishing and associated tourism.

With your mind set we should just flogg everything off for the good of "the economy" sounds good, though in my mind I would have thought a smaller fishery would make the ones left over more profitable, at present I think most would agree it is being "flogged".

It is strange you appear to be 'for' net fishing but jump up and down when some one mentions a fair buy back?

Dan

Noelm

05-06-2013, 08:41 AM

mattooty

05-06-2013, 09:45 AM

Noelm

05-06-2013, 10:30 AM

Noelm "if that's your view, then best pack up your gear, because we all line fish".... Are you a Pro????

Nope, not a pro at all, and if you read all my posts, you will clearly see I have not supported anyone, but if someone posts something that appears to be somewhat "embelished" I question it, just like I questioneed Samson when he said he used 40KG of bait a day, the response was perectly acceptable to me, he was a pro operator, and as such he could well use that much bait, so to me, thats fine, he proved his response was legitimate, same goes for any of the other posts in this thread, if you have something to say, go ahead, but keep it FACTUAL, emotive rants and hear say will gain nothing.

nigelr

05-06-2013, 10:44 AM

I wonder how you guys think the NSW residents feel when QLD mullet crews target NSW beaches legally?
the whole fishery is not just all QLD.
some of us actually live in NSW.

Personally, I'd be interested in your opinion on this matter Gabba, your being an ex-commercial fisher.
As I NSW rec fisher, I don't like it one bit, but I'm sure you have more insight on this matter than me.

lbger

05-06-2013, 01:49 PM

"Nope, not a pro at all, and if you read all my posts, you will clearly see I have not supported anyone, but if someone posts something that appears to be somewhat "embelished" I question it"

Maybe a stint in politics would be a good move they never give a definitive answer or opinion on many subjects as well.. Its all good, the only thing i guess i cant understand is in light of the thread topic, as a rec fisherman, not a pro you dont have an opinion either way in relation to beach hauling spawning fish.... good or bad..

I think its bad. (beach hauling spawning fish)

Noelm

05-06-2013, 02:05 PM

lbger

05-06-2013, 02:15 PM

well mate, give us your thoughts then......

warti

05-06-2013, 06:09 PM

Noelm, this is another case of un-educated stabs in the dark.
Warti, Not just ANY Pro-Fisherman can fish anything he wants. Each river system or geographic location has "Shares" or "Endorsements" that they must buy to be able to fish that particular style. Eg. Estuary Mullet Meshing, Ocean Handline, Ocean Trawl etc etc.
Under Fisheries implemented laws, each region, (Gladstone may have up to a dozen "Regions"), is designated a particular amount of endorsements. One fisherman, could technically own all the endorsements if he was efficient enough. Most of the time when fisherman from other regions or areas go to different locations it's because they've bought a share in that fishery and may only fish it once or twice a year.

Thank you for replying with exactly what I said with my uneducated information! A pro can come from another area and net the guts out of my local fishery with no regards to the effects of his action (cause he my only do it twice a year as you say). Drive home and continue in their local area. This is what I mean by LOCAL. Maybe you do not know/remember what happened at the mouth of the boyne? Can you please provide me with the actual information on the regional areas,overlaps of these regional areas? I might also add that I have a few mates whom are mates with a fair few pros so I do know a little bit of what goes on behind closed doors.

GABBA110360

05-06-2013, 07:37 PM

Personally, I'd be interested in your opinion on this matter Gabba, your being an ex-commercial fisher.
As I NSW rec fisher, I don't like it one bit, but I'm sure you have more insight on this matter than me.
in my situation of being on the amateur side these days I don't like the idea of my favourite spot being trashed before I even thought about going there.
But the blokes netting the spot are only doing what they are legally
allowed to do through there license allocation.

Don't worry it pisss me of if I think my spot to get a nice school jew has been trashed by 6 inch and chaining during the week when i'm at work but that's how the cookie crumbles.
we all have a vocation whether it be fishing or banking and we do so to make a living

mylestom

06-06-2013, 03:57 PM

This story tells a little of what happens to the so called by product.

http://www.coffscoastadvocate.com.au/news/investigation-massive-fish-dump-beach-netters/1897355/

MudRiverDan

06-06-2013, 06:20 PM

This story tells a little of what happens to the so called by product.

http://www.coffscoastadvocate.com.au/news/investigation-massive-fish-dump-beach-netters/1897355/

Not defending them too much but IMO in the food industry if the load is rejected then it is illegal to sell or even give away.
I have seen similar food wastage in other sectors when a load gets rejected.
At best it could be used for fertilizer, even pet food has quality controls that stop certain product being used.

They are all undersized?
Something is up there as you would think any undersized would be thrown back? , unless they tried to move them on the sly.
The article does not really give much detail?

Dan

Chanlo

08-06-2013, 01:03 PM

93414

Taken from The Coffs Advocate today.

This is what happened a few years ago.

Looks like I wont be fishing light again for a long time again.

rabbi

14-06-2013, 03:32 PM

Dont get me started on this topic guys..
The pros havnt made any friends in the richmond at ballina this week with tonnes of big jew netted in the river. the amateurs will be hard up to catch a jew now for some time as the freezers at the co-op are full or they may be on their way to sydney as I am typing this.
I for one am not going to throw any jew back now with the mentality of the pro fishers. stuff trying to conserve stocks when they are allowed to net the crap out of them. will keep my bag limit every time....
As as far as I am concerned I hope the amateurs fish the crap outa this river this year and that means less fish in the nets..
the local community does not benefit at all from this practise at around $6kg that the pros get and it all goes to sydney and a lot of river pros are on government subsidies to keep them with money in their pockets...
A lot of angry fishos here thats for sure..

manta man

14-06-2013, 06:13 PM

Ah you'd like to talk about the slaughter of Barra in the Gladstone Area. Mate 30 cents a KILO OR JUST THROW THEM IN THE BIN. Why net the god damm things anyway, let them swim away and 'Breed". You would have thought it would have been better for everybody involved to just let them Swim Away. But NO Mr Robinson and his advisers thought otherwise. I"ll tell you straight up i have "ABSOLUTELY NO TIME FOR THE "CAMPBELL WEASLE GOVERNMENT" AND THERE POLICIES IN REGARDS TO ANYTHING TO DO WITH RECREATIONAL FISHING

Slider

16-06-2013, 07:53 AM

[QUOTE=mattooty; Most of the time when fisherman from other regions or areas go to different locations it's because they've bought a share in that fishery and may only fish it once or twice a year.[/QUOTE]

Incorrect. An N1 licence owner can fish any eastern state waters other than closed waters described in the Queensland Commercial Fishery Handbook. There are about 150 N1 licences that can pretty well move around as they please.

Slider

16-06-2013, 08:06 AM

I do have an opinion, but I just like to see any thoughts (for and against) put forward, a few pages back someone suggested we need more rec only fishing areas, would he be supportive of more "green zones" that being no one at all can fish there? nope, I reckon not, what it amounts to is, WE think the fish are ours, and ours alone, and any pro should be banned or something, that is simply not the way to go.

I am supportive of green zones and am not of the belief that recs should have exclusive access to the fish. This is apparent if you read that I believe that mullet netting should take place inside the mouth of estuaries. Also apparent by way of statements regarding commercial fishers becoming more viable as a result of rec only areas and my desire for commercial fishers to be wealthy and having job security for the length of their fishing career.

If you're going to make assumptions, then it would be adviseable to read what has been written by the person you are assuming thinks in a particular way.

Dan - yes, I believe that a different management approach should occur in rec only areas. Bag limits should be less, size limits greater, gear restrictions applicable and perhaps a limited number of permits available to fish a given rec only area during a weekly or monthly period.

Moonlighter

16-06-2013, 08:50 AM

I am supportive of green zones

You lost me from that point onwards.

And I might add, so do the the rec fishers who want more yellow zones, or modified green zones where rec fishing can happen, when that argument is simply on the basis that it gets the rec sector exclusive access at the expense of commercial fishing.

People need to get it thru their heads that marine park zones are NOT fisheries management tools. What does that mean? It means that these zoning arrangment are not desogned or intended to be means by which fisheries management agencies manage the sustainabiliy of fish species and by which they manage the access of different sectors to the fishery!

They are purely and simply tools of the greeny politico-scientific sector. And they have carefully designed them to promote divisions between recreational and commercial fishing sectors.

If you go for the line that says "yes, lets have more yellow zones because commercial fishers are excluded from there", then in fact you have been suckered into exactly what they want us to do.

The proof of my statement is clear if you think about it for more than a few seconds.

Which Government Departments are responsible for setting up and managing green zones/marine parks? Its not Fisheries,is it? Its the EPA, National Parks mob, or their current equivalent!

I cannot recall 1 instance in which a Govt Fisheries manager in this country has said

"Please let us put in massive marine parks because we need them to help manage pur fisheries".

Why? Because they don't need them. They already have more than sufficient tools at their disposal under Fisheries Legislation to do their jobs - size and bag limits, closed seasons, reserves, and so on.

The only situations elsewhere in the world where green zones have helped sustainability are where there is no effective fisheries management process in place.

Slider

16-06-2013, 10:08 AM

GARFISH

16-06-2013, 11:51 AM

Interesting graphs, which show that over the last 10 years increasing or remaining relative flat catches and could then draw a conclusion that the population is stable or growing and fisheries are sustainable. As a person with a stats degree i believe nothing that is stats,,, I could take data and make it tell the opposite by selective and analytical inclusions, the number of data sets that are reared to obtain the story / hypothesis that is being sought can take time to find eg changing time frames as I did to this data set gives a different result.

Average catches over a 40 year period in a fishing club I was a member showed continual improvements in fish / angler / trip despite continual anecdotal evidence of declining catches

Slider

16-06-2013, 02:04 PM

You are no doubt more skilled than I am with stats and data Garfish, I only have the ability to graph them as they are. Yields, boats, days fished as supplied by FQ is all that is being shown. Effort and cpue are calculated from that data in accepted manners and which are used in all variety of fisheries. And pre 2000 data has to be considered to provide an historical perspective.
But then, fisheries isn't necessarily all about statistics either - though for many of the species in this region the stats are poor when effort and cpue data are considered as need to be, with tailor a clear case in point. Yields alone cannot be used as a gauge of fishery health.
Severe drought from '96 until August 2007 and above average falls each year since is of significant relevance with a view to the next drought which may be imminent and when comparing with pre '96 rainfall, catch and effort data. Teaming up by K8 fishers about 1999/2000 with as many as 9 nets working together makes an enormous difference to overall yields of mullet in particular. Especially when only 1 person at a time is required to do the searching for those 9 licence holders.The increasing number of days fished to achieve yields after 2000 despite this radically improved efficiency tells a story on its own.

So while you may be able to statistically make the catch data for this region tell a different story, I'm not sure that there would be any point in reading anything in to it if the actual realities of the fishery mean that it's fiction.

Well documented in recreational fisheries is the significant advancements in fishing power and especially offshore. I hope you built these into your club stats Garfish??

GARFISH

16-06-2013, 02:51 PM

Slider,

of interest even the govt research paper into tailor catches also showed increasing catch for club anglers.
I note that a 3% increase in fishing power pa was applied, implying that fishing power has doubled over the period of your graphs I am assuming they are yours, which is based on what CPI. Mate fisheries aren't getting any worse we are getting lazier as a whole and are believing the good old days existed. Of note the increase in availability of cheap basa has not been mentioned through here as the primary driver of a decrease in commercial catch's which given total seafood consumption pp in Australia began increasing when imported seafood had a increase during the early 2000 specifically in prepared areas. The reduction in catch could be more market driven throu basics if supply and demand

Moonlighter

16-06-2013, 05:41 PM

Can't say I'd go along with much of that Moonlighter and how dare I express that opinion hey? Is merely my personal opinion based on the plethora of scientific studies that exist from around the world that without exception demonstrate an increase in biodiversity, including fish population and individual size, within closed areas and a spillover that commercial and recreational fishers alike happen to take advantage of.
I have not at any stage pushed my personal opinions in this regard into the public domain until Noelm made assumptions about my attitude to green zones that I wished to refute. You can conclude that I am anti recreational fishing if you like, but Noelm seems to have a rather different accusation to make of my opinion which is at the complete opposite end of the scale. For ease of comprehension, let us just say that I am somewhere in the middle of the scale - at about the balance point.

You can espress whatever opinion you like, and so can I. You've now shown your colours by supporting green zones. That just about says it all as far as I'm concerned.

I just happen to disagree with you. And i know enough about the dodgy science behind them to dare to question them and people who seem to want to promote them for purposes for which they were never intended.

I saw the almost religous ferver of the EPA greenies who latched onto the barest shred of evidence to support their case, and how they refused to acknowledge that before contemplating additional fishing restrictions, they first needed to consider and evaluate the current fisheries management regime that was in place.

But no, their attitude was fixed: we need 30% green zones everywhere. Local fisheries management regimes dont count.

All the studies around the world demonstrate increased biodiversity, do they? Do any of them demonstrate fisheries benifits in countries like Australia where we have active and internationally well regarded fisheries management regimes? No, they dont. Show me some if you disagree.

As to proven biodiversity benefits, well I had a really close read of the scientific paper by one Sue Pillans upon which most of the greeny EPA scientists hung their hats and used as "proof of green zones producing increased biodiversity" in the Bay.

I'm not a marine bioligist, but I do have a degree and I do understand statistics, having worked with them to measure business performance for around 20 years.

After reading said paper, i formed the conclusion that the data gathered and presented did not support the conclusions drawn. There was just not enough of a difference in the data to be statistically significant, in my opinion. In laymans terms that means that the difference between before green zones and after wasnt enough to draw any conclusions from.

So i rang my mate who is a marine bioligist and fisheries expert and an Associate Professor in this field, no less, and told him what I thought. His reply was "I wondered if you would pick that up, and yes, you are exactly right".

As to the much vaunted "spillover effect", show me the evidence that backs your statements. Then we will have a look at the methodology they used, and subject it to some critical review, and we will see where that leaves us, eh? Ive read quite a few of those papers and they are singularly unconvincing. I have also seen credible reseach on the GBR on this spillover effect, where the spliiover effect was so microscopically small it was of no significance at all.

For there to be a net fisheries benefit, it means that more fish were able to be caught after implementing the new rules than before, you do understand that, don't you?

The characteristics of those people I dealt with on the green side in the Bay rezoning were, shall we say, interesting. They didn't like to be questioned, they didn't like it when our senior fisheries scientists and even educated rec fishers like me caught them out telling porkies including to the minister and others, and they didn't like it when funamental flaws in their arguments and proposals were pointed out. And they got personal in their attacks on us in return.

Hope you're not heading the same way, Slider.

nigelr

16-06-2013, 06:49 PM

Can't help thinking there's a couple blokes here actually on the same page....
As for tailor numbers increasing?? Not around these particular parts. Decline in number and size over the last 30 years is irrefutable, haven't seen a decent amount of choppers for at least a decade. I'd reckon that would stand for a lot of other areas too, not just where I happen to live.....

Boat Hog

16-06-2013, 07:03 PM

Strange how there's plenty of reports (evidence?) of Australian Salmon and Kingfish numbers increasing due to legislated changes in Commercial fishing practices. Yet I haven't' seen any reports on how legislated changes to Recreational fishing practices (i.e. Marine Park green zones, bag and size limits) have directly resulted in increased fish numbers?

FWIW, I agree with 'green zones' and protected areas in the Marine Environment much the same way as National Parks. But only, that's ONLY, where such areas are identified as being of unique importance etc by Scientific Means. The lock em out at all costs mentality is wrong, wrong, wrong.

I've had a few beers and that's only my opinion,

Cheers,

Slider

16-06-2013, 08:27 PM

I am pretty confident Moonlighter that I could debate that issue with a great deal of supporting evidence and simple logic. However, I'm not prepared to and never have been. I support the use of green zones as a conservation tool based on the findings of a bundle of scientists around the world who have had their work peer reviewed already. Sorry if that isn't satisfactory for you but that is my opinion and prerogative.

I'd be interested Garfish as to when the gov research into club tailor catches was conducted? And also, as to your club's tailor catches, whether they were land based or offshore?
3%p.a. effort creep is fairly standard, but even if I didn't apply any effort creep, the data still shows increasing effort (days fished) and reducing cpue for the majority of species in the 3 grids assessed. That increasing effort, I would think, would dispel the theory that market forces are reducing catch rates.

I kind of can't really swallow the fishing is getting better and fishers getting lazier scenario. Way more anglers out there more than makes up for any alleged individual laziness - not to mention huge increases in fishing power. But it's all a bit of a generalisation to lump the entire state's fishing into one basket. There are certainly some areas doing better than others and the chances are that fishing pressure would be a particularly significant factor as to why.

GARFISH

17-06-2013, 06:27 AM

back to the op there is nothing wrong with that. Went for a walk along a pier last weekend and what the "rec" anglers were doing was wrong wrong wrong I spoke to some of them about the undersized fish they were keeping and was told to mind my own business by the parents
Which is worse legal netting activity by a licensed pro or illegal fish taking by anyone whether rec or pro I know the latter specifically when done by pros is far worse as is the rec anglers who sell catch

Slider

17-06-2013, 08:12 AM

It's a problem no doubt - just been walking along the beach here at Teewah and saw a guy keeping a near see through dart. However, part of the problem is that legal fish are so thin on the ground that people feel that they have to keep something for their hard earnt they've spent to go fishing and unless there's the possibility of being busted, then "who cares". Like the tailor fishos at Fraser who insist that they have to take home as many tailor as possible to justify the expense of the holiday. Was appalling the number and size of fish being kept there this year. As you say, it's wrong.
Daryl McPhee claims in one of his papers that 50% of fish kept by rec anglers are illegal. I'd say that's a gross overestimate but terrific fodder for the anti angler brigade nevertheless.

All of which makes a mockery of bag limits that are or aren't in place for surf species. I haven't heard of anyone going close to any of the limits in recent years around here or from any Sunny Coast beaches for that matter.
And in 40 + years of fishing this beach, I've been inspected by Fisheries officers twice and on both occasions while conditions were such that nobody else was even on the beach let alone fishing. I have my thoughts on why only when conditions are foul, but I forget - FQ are on top of things and I shouldn't worry about any of these things.

Slider

17-06-2013, 08:46 AM

Some more tailor graphs attached - this time there is no effort creep and just the 'days fished' compared to yields and cpue. Cpue is calculated by dividing the annual yield by the days fished which is divided by the number of boats/licences to give an average daily yield per boat. As can be seen in the first graph - cpue for each grid is falling steadily and particularly after about 2000 which is when recs started to notice the decline also.

It should be noted that the days fished is only the days when fish are actually caught and logged by fishers. The days spent searching for fish are never included. What this means is that any increase in effort to find fish is never included and when cpue and yields are decreasing then it is a reasonable assumption to make that there is increasing effort involved in finding fish. However, just the reducing cpue and the logged days fished means that schools are getting smaller and/or there is less of them.
I've watched the local pro who would be responsible for the majority of tailor taken off this beach drive up and down the beach, day after day over the last couple of years without wetting a net, but apparently that's not relevant and certainly isn't considered by the people telling us that this tailor fishery is sustainable. He then might find 3 tonne of tailor (for instance) and that is a single days fishing when there might have been a dozen days when he didn't find anything. So therefore, days fished isn't really reflective of actual effort at all and only reflects the successful days fished. What a debacle!

I've added boats into the W32 graph to provide some perspective of actual effort.

W32 - northern Fraser Is.
W34 - southern Fraser and northern Cooloola (Teewah & Rainbow Beaches)
W35 - southern Cooloola (Teewah Beach - south of Cherry Venture)

manta man

17-06-2013, 09:38 AM

Hey Slider, do they still Net up that way during the "Rainbow Beach Family Fishing Classic". Cheers Manta Man

Slider

17-06-2013, 10:15 AM

Absolutely Manta Man. It's held smack bang in the middle of the most intense netting that occurs throughout the year. Something that most entrants wouldn't be aware of is that the gun tailor fishos from this area know only too well that their chances of finding good tailor (or other species) along Teewah and Rainbow Beaches during the comp are very limited, so they fish half way up Fraser in the no netting zone.

D.I. lagoon was netted yesterday - I'm told.

Moonlighter

17-06-2013, 10:33 AM

FWIW, I agree with 'green zones' and protected areas in the Marine Environment much the same way as National Parks. But only, that's ONLY, where such areas are identified as being of unique importance etc by Scientific Means. The lock em out at all costs mentality is wrong, wrong, wrong.

I've had a few beers and that's only my opinion,

Cheers,

Jim, if that was how green zones were decided, then I'd be right with you in supporting them. Regrettably, it isn't.

The rationale as applied by the greenies here in Australia is that they demand 30% or some other "scientifically determined percentage" of all different habitat types in any area to be protected.

So as an example, you can have "inshore rocky reef" as one habitat type, "boiturbated mud" as another. So then thy say there is a dire need to preserve 30% of each of those habitat types, regardless of considerations like you have put forward - ie there could be absolutely nothing unique, special or even pristine about it and it could be declared a lock out zone!

We even had the debacle in Moreton Bay of inshore rocky reef areas around St Helena Island being declared Green zones - these areas had been mined for coral/limestone for 30 years for cement, for heavens sake - but the greenies insisted on X% of that habitat being declared green, and so it was.

The other queston you asked about whether there are examples of fisheries management approaches resulting in species becoming more abundant - well, look no further than flathead as a perfect example. Size, bag and slot limits applied some years ago, and flathead numbers are now far better than they have been in many years.

Crikey, there are so many of them out there that they even can be caught in big numbers on bits of plastic;D

Another example is southern bluefin tuna. International qoutas, TAC's and other fisheries restrictions have seen stocks rebound further and faster than even the experts predicted. Gemfish are yet another example. And we could keep on qouting examples of similar successes.

And none of those species that are now recovered or recovering strongly required anti-fishing green zones to achieve that result.

Many of the overseas examples our friend Slider refers to are from countries where there is no effective fisheries management. And where fishing methods of the local population still include dynamite and cyanide. In these cultures and circumstances, declaring whole areas, reefs etc as no fishing zones may well be the only option that works.

That's why you have to beware of people quoting overseas successes as justification for implementing the same approaches here in Australia.

As you can see, that sledgehammer approach is hardly warranted in Australia because our culture and circumstances are somewhat different, thankfully.

Slider

17-06-2013, 11:06 AM

No, I'm referring to countries like New Zealand, the U.S. and South Africa actually.

manta man

17-06-2013, 11:35 AM

Cheers for that Slider

Slider

18-06-2013, 10:56 AM

Gloriously calm morning with a spectacular sunrise and walked to the 3rd cut and back to Teewah for a bunch of cowries and to see if there is anything moving in the surf. Saw a few small dart and some terns looking for food, but didn't see any feeding. So an improvement on yesterday's similar walk to the north, as I only saw the undersized caught dart yesterday and the usual flocks of seagulls. This is a routine I go through on a regular basis - I rarely see anything on these walks but it's a way of keeping tabs on fish and tern movements - or lack of.
But after yesterday's comment in this thread of being inspected twice in 40+ years by fisheries inspectors on this beach, I was passed this morning by a Fishwatch vehicle. They inspected the only angler I saw, but it's nice to know that at least they do still come up here - even though it's really quiet on the beach and hardly anyone around. The angler had 1 flathead in his bucket and was picking up a few undersized flathead and said he can't find anything else - which is the usual story here in June/July.

littlejim

18-06-2013, 05:59 PM

Wow! This sure is a long thread.
We had heaps of places round and near Jervis Bay made 'no fishing' areas with the stated aim of providing breeding areas for the small fish. *
However many of the spots included had obviously nothing to do with breeding little fish but more to do with where bods had been washed off the rocks, needs of the local aborigines, somebody's personal views. A lot of the well known sea facing rock fishing spots were included.
I think that there were several agendas running as well as the one of protecting baby fish.
recently most of the restricted areas outside of the Bay have been taken off the 'no fishing' list so common sense has prevailed.
* I happened to fish Moes Rock the day before the restrictions came in, it was wall to wall kingfish traps along the rock. Almost impossible to find somewhere to cast. The pros were having a final fling.

rabbi

19-06-2013, 10:38 AM

Yep,
A lot of the rivers are also breeding grounds and nurseries for fish and they have a seasonal run of fish to spawn, such as mullet and mulloway.
How easy is it to net these fish when schooling? TOO EASY!!!
Anyone with any fish sense at all could net these fish. I dont know about a passed down skill for some people, moreso a desire to kill as many breeding fish in one session as they can and then sell them for their eggs which is worth a few bucks and then the rest is basically given away.
Mulloway are extremely easy to find and net when spawning too and are extremely devalued by that method of capture. $6 a kg, what a joke, the retailers in sydney are making the money not our local industry or community.

you want people to spend their money in a fishing paradise you have to support that way of thinking and people will come with their money if they can catch a trophy fish. I was talking to some people at a caravan park this morning and they said they are going elsewhere next time as they came here to catch a feed of fish (spend their money..) and got bugger all.

A couple of weeks ago there was plenty of jew for everyone!!
This week there has hardly been a fish caught.. All gone apart from a few lucky fish that may have slipped the net.

What will happen now is in about 2 weeks time there will be a few more ocean fish enter the river to spawn and they will end up in a net as well. This trend will continue with ever decreasing pro catches until the second week of September when whatever is left of the river jew population will move back downstream to leave the river and there will be a net waiting too and then the jew catches will dwindle to almost nothing.. Not even close to sustainable despite what their surveys show.
The jew stocks are bound to have an inevitable crash and ultimately have closed seasons and even stricter rules for us amateurs.
The contempt is growing against netting gradually and eventually they may do something about it but here we are paying fishing licence fees to support a commercial harvesting industry..

Have a look on the net and look at Byron Bay Sundive clips of the cod hole and Julian rocks and see the amount of life in a no go zone and then look at what the happy hunting ground Richmond river has left..

Netting beaches and rivers has no future...Wrong,wrong,wrong.

Pretty pissed off at the moment guys..

I have just completed training with Human Behaviour and I am pretty sure this is the emotional response. I havnt got to the communication or ethics part yet::)

Noelm

19-06-2013, 10:52 AM

Wow! This sure is a long thread.

* I happened to fish Moes Rock the day before the restrictions came in, it was wall to wall kingfish traps along the rock. Almost impossible to find somewhere to cast. The pros were having a final fling.

when and where were these Kingfish traps located?

Aussie123

19-06-2013, 11:55 AM

Why do people on here think it is great to smash the snapper in Moreton Bay during their spawning run yet condemn other sectors of the fishing industry for doing a similar thing.
Would everyone be happy if the pros pushed for a 3 month closure of snapper during winter?

Slider

19-06-2013, 12:12 PM

I'm hearing ya Rabbi - I live in a permanent state of pissed off - and piss poor commercial fishing practices.

On jew - a particularly good local angler with 60 years experience fishing this region who used to focus on jew and happens to be the brother of a local beach hauler, has told me several times that the jew disappeared altogether from this region after a large haul of roed up jew from the mouth of the Noosa in the early 70s (by his family) - about when I started fishing here. They have never returned according to him, and if he hadn't told me that story I would never have known they were here at all. The old man and I fished through the 70s and 80s with baits - pilchards, tailor flesh, whiting, mullet etc through the nights and while we caught a hell of a lot of tailor and sharks and the odd spaniard, we never struck a single jew. You hear of the odd one but there's never any size to them and the pros don't get any in their nets.

My grandfather was a club angler from Ocean View Drive Wamberal who fished with the Terrigal club from before WW1. He showed me the photos of the 70lb jew they'd get on handlines and later overheads, the 30lb snapper off the rocks etc etc. He said when the nets started, everything disappeared and by the time I started fishing there in the early 70s, he refused to come fishing as he said it's pointless. And it wasn't real good at all compared to Teewah at that time. Now Teewah is just like Wamberal was then and it would seem for precisely the same reason. Now I don't fish here because I reckon it's pointless and that's pretty well the attitude of eveyone else in Teewah. You see the odd local getting excited about mediocre dart or a 'haul' of 3 or 4 choppers, or 2 bream/tarwhine and I swallow the words that want to pour out and say that "they'll be nice for dinner" - as a standard response that won't offend.

I guess the fishing is fine here if you don't know what it was like.

Noelm

19-06-2013, 12:20 PM

So... they never netted back in "the old days"? and somehow netting is why the fishing is not as good as it was 60 years ago? I kind of doubt much of that sort of stuff has anything to do with why there is now no Jewfish in the Noosa river (whether there is or not, I don't know) Netting has ben going on for a very long time, I have an old photo at home of a big haul of fish netted just near my place by guys wearing hats and long pants, probably taken around the 1930's, I think you are groping at straws with that statement. Habitat, pollution and sheer numbers of people would be more to blame than some guy that netted the Noosa river 60 years ago.

Slider

19-06-2013, 12:26 PM

I'm just quoting the brother of a pro on that one Noelm.

Slider

19-06-2013, 12:57 PM

Whoops - put a further reply to Noelm's in the other thread in Saltwater chat.

Noelm

19-06-2013, 03:21 PM

Still want to know where all these Kingfish traps were that were within casting distance of the shore, and when this actually was.

lbger

19-06-2013, 03:48 PM

Im still waiting to hear of your opinion on beach hauling.. asked you about 6 pages back?

littlejim

19-06-2013, 05:10 PM

Noel,
haven't looked at the forum for a while.
It was the day before the first lot of JB area closures came in, quite few years back now. Along the front of Moe's up from the pimple rock. had never seen them there before.
Someone more cluey than me told me they were kingie traps, looked like giant lobster traps.
Dunno why they were so close in to the rock. Although at a spot we used to fish further south, the kingies would come up close to rocks to inspect our pillies and then give it a miss.

Noelm

19-06-2013, 07:17 PM

Oh, someone told you they were Kingfish traps! They have been banned for decades now.

littlejim

19-06-2013, 07:38 PM

Oh, someone told you they were Kingfish traps! They have been banned for decades now.
Noel the post appears to be upsetting you for some reason,; I suspect that they weren't banned at the time of the first round of the JB restrictions, which was probably at least a decade ago (leave the research to you). I'm quite happy with the explanation given to me, the size and shape fitted the bill.
Quite happy for you to tell me otherwise. Shame you weren't there to see them with those of us who did.

nathank

19-06-2013, 07:42 PM

ahhh Noel.. the voice of reason strikes again, your ever present objectiveness is just enlightening! It was 17 years ago actually.. objectively speaking that is one decade and 7 years ago not to be confused with decades which indicates a plural or decades*.... objectively speaking that is.

rabbi

20-06-2013, 10:51 AM

I have kept records for the last 12 years and every time there is a major jew catch by pros in OUR river I dont record a single catch for at least 3 weeks and then its a one hit per session event.
Also my records indicate a distinct decline in jewfish captures for that period of time..(12 years).

These fish are here to feed up on mullet and spawn. Thats if they make it past the nets...

Which is an answer for lbger. Any netting of spawning fish congregations should be banned. fullstop!!

The new fishing regulations being formulated at the moment would indicate that us amatuer fishos will be allowed one jew over 70cm which is fine by me but when you hear of 1 tonne,2 tonne,3tonne of jew taken out of a river in a single week what hope have the fish got , or we got of catching a fish after a massacre like that.
Thats 3000kg or 300 x 10kg fish .....
That could support a thriving tourism industry for fishos who want to spend their money here and I am sure it would generate more cash for the area than the $6 a kg that the netters get.. If a business owner ran his business like that I am sure he would go broke very quickly .
Pretty typical for human nature though, a few easy bucks beats a period of economic growth and sustainability hands down.

Just have a look at some of the overseas countries to see where we are heading.

I know that there are a lot of fishos out there getting pretty mad at hearing about tonnes of jew in a week being netted in one river system alone..

On a positive note there are hundreds of whales going past here at the moment on their annual migration north. When the other fish stocks become depleted I am sure they will be on the hit list for our food... just a matter of time people...

I am still pissed off,apparently.
cheers, steve.

lbger

20-06-2013, 12:28 PM

Rabbi... Mate, i hear ya and if you look all through this thread i am absolutely opposed to beach hauling of spawning fish, there are a few people on here (and for the life of me cant understand that seem to think its ok and has no correlation to dwindling rec catches of desirable species jew included)

Pi#@ed off also.

Noelm

21-06-2013, 08:44 AM

Im still waiting to hear of your opinion on beach hauling.. asked you about 6 pages back?

OK, Here is my thoughts on beach netting (any pro fishing for that matter I guess) I think there is some room for beach hauling, the tricky bit is, how to manage it? and things like, ‘tonnes of Jewies” “A guy netted the Noosa river in 1970 and there has never been a Jew there since” “ bycatch” and emotive rants like that will achieve absolutely nothing, except maybe get a few “bites” on an internet forum! I THINK perhaps a stricter license and zone setup might be better, so, let’s say that the area from (say)Brisbane to Noosa (this is just an area I use as an example) can sustainably support 2? 4? 10? Beach haulers, this then becomes their only zone to fish, and it needs to be the whole of the east coast, so crews from QLD can’t go to NSW(and vice versa) and work when it suits, they are issued their license and zone and that’s it, if you want to expand your operations, you buy another zone, so there is no more numbers of crews working. What will/may this achieve? Perhaps prices may be higher to the end consumer, good or bad? Maybe a bit of both, higher prices mean the fishermangets more money, and just MAYBE it could make sending the catch offshore just abit more expensive, so more of our local product could find it’s way to ourshops, and less Basa and shit! That is only a “maybe” mind you. What about a quota system? In a way, I personally don’t fully agree with a quota setup (not100% against it either) if one guy can’t get his quota for whatever reason,then tough luck, you should not be able to buy quota, now I can see that a quota maintains a “total allowable catch” but I am still not convinced on that being the best way to govern how we go about maintaining stocks. Now we come to species that a certain license may not be entitled to catch, I don’t really see how simply dumping it is the complete answer, but with current laws that’s how it is, but if it was not that way, how do we prevent an unscrupulous operator to “accidently” catch “tonnes of Jews” and sell them? I kind of see somehow if the product could still be sold, and the profit goes to (say) research or perhaps to pay for more inspectors, or some other avenue, might be a better option, but the fisherman does NOT get the cash, would this prevent “accidental”catches? I propose that if a large catch of “something” is taken, by accident,then dumping it dead seems like about as bad a waste of resource as we could ever get, far better to make use of it somehow (in my opinion) For rec fishermen to make any difference to how pros operate, there needs to be a united non emotive voice, individuals who rave and rant just give the opposition better ammunition to use, rants can be disproved in an instant! So…. That’s my views on it, the method and target makes little difference, we could just as easily be talking about Prawn trawlers, their area (as mentioned before) Brisbane to Noosa can support X number of Prawners, then that’s it, that’s their area, take it or leave it? Any thoughts? Flame me if you like, I can take it? and more than happy to say “yep, I can seewhere I am wrong and that’s a better idea” this is not some sort of science, just my opinion, as we are all entitled to have one.

lbger

21-06-2013, 09:06 AM

OK, Here is my thoughts on beach netting (any pro fishingfor that matter I guess) I think there is some room for beach hauling, the tricky bit is, how to manage it? and things like, ‘tonnes of Jewies” “A guynetted the Noosa river in 1970 and there has never been a Jew there since” “ bycatch” and emotive rants like that will achieve absolutely nothing, exceptmaybe get a few “bites” on an internet forum! I THINK perhaps a stricter license and zone setup might be better, so, let’s say that the area from (say)Brisbane to Noosa (this is just an area I use as an example) can sustainably support 2? 4? 10? Beach haulers, this then becomes their only zone to fish, and it needs to be the whole of the east coast, so crews from QLD can’t go to NSW(and vice versa) and work when it suits, they are issued their license and zone and that’s it, if you want to expand your operations, you buy another zone, so there is no more numbers of crews working. What will/may this achieve? Perhaps prices may be higher to the end consumer, good or bad? Maybe a bit of both, higher prices mean the fishermangets more money, and just MAYBE it could make sending the catch offshore just abit more expensive, so more of our local product could find it’s way to ourshops, and less Basa and shit! That is only a “maybe” mind you. What about a quota system? In a way, I personally don’t fully agree with a quota setup (not100% against it either) if one guy can’t get his quota for whatever reason,then tough luck, you should not be able to buy quota, now I can see that a quota maintains a “total allowable catch” but I am still not convinced on that being the best way to govern how we go about maintaining stocks. Now we come to species that a certain license may not be entitled to catch, I don’t really see how simply dumping it is the complete answer, but with current laws that’s how it is, but if it was not that way, how do we prevent an unscrupulous operator to “accidently” catch “tonnes of Jews” and sell them? I kind of see somehow if the product could still be sold, and the profit goes to (say) research or perhaps to pay for more inspectors, or some other avenue, might be a better option, but the fisherman does NOT get the cash, would this prevent “accidental”catches? I propose that if a large catch of “something” is taken, by accident,then dumping it dead seems like about as bad a waste of resource as we could ever get, far better to make use of it somehow (in my opinion) For rec fishermen to make any difference to how pros operate, there needs to be a united non emotive voice, individuals who rave and rant just give the opposition better ammunition to use, rants can be disproved in an instant! So…. That’s my views on it, the method and target makes little difference, we could just as easily be talking about Prawn trawlers, their area (as mentioned before) Brisbane to Noosa can support X number of Prawners, then that’s it, that’s their area, take it or leave it? Any thoughts? Flame me if you like, I can take it? and more than happy to say “yep, I can seewhere I am wrong and that’s a better idea” this is not some sort of science, just my opinion, as we are all entitled to have one.

Ok cool 188 posts later but nice one..
Rants are not to be confused with passion also Noelm.. Rants have caused demonstrations and protests..If enough people feel strongly enough about something a lot of the time stuff does gets done. Some of the comments about what has happened from first hand experience on this thread, you are saying is emotive rants and to just dismiss peoples first hand experience has given you an air of "im above you" Its a passionate topic mate and makes my blood boil (and lots of other people) to see the destruction it causes (firsthand experience). But anyway good on you for putting up your view.

Noelm

21-06-2013, 09:12 AM

nope, never disputed any "first hand" stuff that didn't appear to be somewhat embellished, just asked for clarity when someone was "told by a mate" or "heard" also never said I supported the beach haulers either, BUT I do believe that there is a place for them, how that place is decided is the issue, and banning them altogether is NOT going to happen and neither should it (in my opinion) but we do need far tighter control over methods of fishing, both rec and pro, boats and equipment are getting better by the day, enable "us" to go further and wider to catch species that were once almost unknown to us, it needs to be a two way street.

lbger

21-06-2013, 09:51 AM

need far tighter control over methods of fishing, both rec and pro, boats and equipment are getting better by the day, enable "us" to go further and wider to catch species that were once almost unknown to us, it needs to be a two way street.

yep agree, if all rec fishers only took what they needed it would be a good thing also.. the thing that will also never happen is the fact there just isnt enough ppl to enforce this.. on the goldy though its pretty good i would say that i get pulled over once every 3 times i go fishing even 10 11ks offshore which is pretty cool :) Its mainly by the police but they also check your catch.

rabbi

22-06-2013, 04:36 PM

Yep yep..

passion is a driving force behind most peoples opinions and in my case it is a passion.
You ban golf balls from being used at a golf course and see how long it takes before you get whacked with a golf club!

I think with the new regs coming into force or proposed to come into force for NSW will halve the bag limits for current everyday fishos but still allow open slather for pros.
I have heard from from a qualified source that 1kg of fish costs the average fisho $67 per kg to catch through buying gear, boats etc and yes
I know the pros have high costs too so they must have high yields to cover such costs and I know of quite a few outside pros that have a very high lifestyle from their catches, but the river systems are much more limited with what can be taken out than the deep blue sea.
I heard from a couple of wise old fishos that to protect the river and make it more sustainable there should be a complete ban on river netting and also 3km from the river mouth in any direction and then the netters can utilise the remainder of the beaches.

I know for sure that the line fishing pros do very well indeed off Evans Heads when the mulloway run..

All of my''rants'' are based on knowledge that I know is factual and what I have physically seen myself and is not me in 'hysterical' mode...

I am one for fairness in any area of society but their seems to be quite a lot of discrimination against the amatuer fisho.

I think all of us will be buying our fish from fish shops soon with the current an upcoming government regulations..

cheers,steve..