Some thoughts

[mod2]

FISHING
Over the past few years, there are and have been many petitions etc in regards to attempts to increase fish stocks. All very admirable in theory.
Many mention that the fish stocks are lower than thirty or more years ago. The catch rates are lower but I am not sure if the actual fish numbers are lower. They may have moved elsewhere.
Green Zones: Many petitions make reference to green zones in regards to fish stocks. The green zones in S.E. Qld were not introduced with fish in mind. They were introduced for the protection of various types of sea bed. This may have a follow on effect in regards to the fish stocks but that was not the original aim.

WHAT HAS CHANGED:

1. Foreshore development : so many canal estates have been built. This required dredging, land clearing, mangrove destruction and a complete change in the environment of the fishes. Then when these developments had people build houses, what happened next? The residents wanted nice gardens and lawns. Nothing wrong with that except the residual herbicides, fungicides and fertilisers ran down the stormwater drains and into the waterways. Obviously not conducive for the fishes to live there. On the flip side, once these canals were established for quite a few years they have created a safe haven for some species of juvenile fishes. At the moment, I can say I have never seen so many juvenile bream and moses perch in the Bribie canals than anytime in the past few years.

2. Population growth: With the urban sprawl comes more people and if the percentage of rec anglers is the same then obviously more people out wetting a line. This will also increase the pressure on the fish stocks.

3. Boating affordability: Never has boating been more affordable. The design and build of boats has changed dramatically over the years. They are now better designed, safer and have longer range than in years past and can be bought by the average working person.

4. Technology: This is one of the main causes. When I first started fishing, there was no such thing as sounders. Let alone GPS, radar and mobile phones on rec anglers boat. To prepare for a fishing trip you could only rely on the weather report on TV or radio, not scour through a myriad of weather sites on the internet. If you were off shore and lucked onto some fish, you could not just press a button and retain that spot for future trips. Driving the boat around looking for bottom structure was unheard of. Now there is bottom scan, side scan and a plethora of other electronic aids to assist the rec angler. Then for the estuary angler there are electric motors which can hold you on the spot. Where this will end up is anyone’s guess.

5. Legislation: This has changed in regards to size and bag limits but it appears to be flouted by quite a few people. If the fish are not allowed sufficient time to grow and spawn several times prior to being legal size, then there is no chance of stocks improving.

Fish have only a bare number of instincts: survival, feed and breed. If we remove the food source, we remove the fish. If we do not give them ample time to grow and spawn several times we remove the fish. If we remove any part of their food chain and shelter areas, we remove their survival chances.

I do not believe stocking of salt water areas is a solution without changing other items first. We need to create shelter and food areas such as artificial reefs, FAD’s and other similar ideas. We need to be cognisant of the detrimental issues when conducting foreshore or waterway development. We need to ensure that anglers are abiding by the current legislation and harsh fines to be in force for offenders. We need good science so we know what the current situation is at any time and take steps to correct the situation if there is a decline in any species. This is not just the desired fish that anglers attempt to catch but ALL species as they all are part of the marine food chain. This can only come about with the support of a Government with a strong conviction to these issues.

We, as recreational anglers, have an obligation to the rest of society to show we are not the beer soaked yobbos some perceive us to be. That we are conscientious about the environment we fish in and care for it.

Where do we go from here? I do not really know, I merely have my observations.
Without a holistic approach to all of the above then I fear the situation will never change.

Fish responsibly
Instil the need to follow legislation
Share your knowledge with others
Help the fish stocks recover
Initiate good fishing practises
Never risk the safety of yourself or others
Get out and enjoy


May you all have a very Merry Xmas..be safe. And a happy and prosperous 2014.

[Scalem]

Mod 2 thanks for the overview that's a good read. Almost paints a picture of the current landscape. All those fish in the canals will be feeding and growing amidst all those chemicals being washed into their water, we feed on them and..... There are mixed opinions about how toxins and heavy metals affect our health, and I am unqualified to make any conclusions or inferences.... But we still can't find out why cancer starts. Why are we affected by so many other diseases?

Thought provoking!

Scalem

[sharkymark2]

Awesome read. Over the years I have thought what a great idea to breed fingerlings to boost fishing stocks but like you said you have to fix the basics first. What we need is a dedicated fisherman win an election to get into parliament to bring some serious change. Any takers?

[dogsbody]

If fishing persons population increases and actual places to fish remains static then less chance of fish escaping the pan. More artificial reefs in the bay would provide less bums on seats in a given area which would give fish more chance to escape capture to breed. If lack of food for fish is a problem artis would go some way to help the equation, depending on where each fish feeds of course.

Water/environment quality is a factor in this as well. One part of the puzzle I've thought about is, Brisbane's population increases, more cars on roads, what effect if any is the amount of tyres used having? Given that most of the tread will make it's way to creeks and eventually into the bay. Everything adds up to a problem somewhere down the line, somethings can be fixed/reduced but somethings will run it's course due to our presence on this earth.

Dave

[tunaticer]

What qld needs above anything else is better policing. In Victoria you can expect a visit from a fisheries officer every day to check licences and bags, Victorians accept this as a part of going fishing. There is much less ignorance of the rules down there and the penalties are handed out for the least abuse of the rules. Qlders, by and large do not know the rules and a large % of those will not bother to check a size or bag limit because the chances of being caught are bugger all.
Address that problem first and then look at restocking programs.

I would like to see minimum sizes raised again. Bream to 32cm, flatties to 55cm (capped at 75cm), summer whiting to 30cm, snapper to 50cm.
Look at the average jew size now after 4 or 5 yrs of the larger limit, all other species will follow the same direction.
I would much rather take one larger fish that will provide the same yeild as 3 smaller fish, it has got to be better for the ecosystem.

[SCREAMER]

Just the tip of the iceberg Mod2
Queensland population 1974 = 2 million 1992 = 3 million Now = 4.7 million

Raby Bay mangroves gone, fisherman islands mongroves gone, brisbane airport mangroves gone, bishop island gone, bishop island mangroves gone ............

waterways filled with carp, tilapia and a range of other ferals

waterways, rivers and bays have a layer of aliminium cans, paper, plastic ......

pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer, hormones being introduced to waterways daily

heavy metals of all kinds have been settling in the sediment over decades and get disturbed during flooding and dredging.

These are cumulative in fish and those things that eat them including us.

So much more but who has the time to list it all.


Often suggested remedies to aid fish species,
Breeding programs - limits genetic diversity, potential dangers unless contained from wild population
Artificial reefs - act as aggregation devices only not breeding areas
Size limits - fisheries agencies usually aim for maximum sustainable yeild. most fish limits approximately match the size which allows them the opportunity to breed once or twice throughout there lives. In some cases at certain stages benefits are no longer forthcoming as catch and release mortality, natural predation negate tangible gains.

A 32cm bream for example is ~ 10 to 15yo as against a 25cm bream at 2 to 5yo. An extra 8 to 10 years to accumulate heavy metals, compound catch and release mortaility, succumb to natural predators........ Plus what is becoming the food for these bigger fish?

The gains for Jew were a diffenrent situation all togher. They were being fished well below maturity meaning few fish ever got to breed. They have simply been brought into line with most all other species.

[roz]

thanks for the post, good reading with well thought out points.
One thing that I now see as a positive, is the introduction of green zones, I formed this opinion after talking to a Kiwi fishing mate of mine, he was against a green zone being placed over one of his fishing spots in NZ, however he changed his mind after finding a significant increase in the fish population around this zone, must add it took around a decade not a few years for the recovery to impact fish stocks.
In my view the protection of the entire food chain is a must, it may not be the perfect solution & many people may take a different view but one thing is certain, things must change or managed differently so our children can enjoy what we've at times taken for granted.

tight lines cheers roz :)

[Slider]

If my understanding of the identity of Mod 2 is correct, then I would suggest that Mod 2 hasn't really thought at all when he wrote this little piece. After all the debates we have had on the issue of fish sustainability, Mod 2, and the massive amounts of evidence that I have presented during those debates, some of which you accepted, your failure to mention nets as being a cause of fish population decline indicates to me that your thoughts are lacking thought and you are ignoring the bleeding obvious. Although I note that you're not even sure that populations have declined - but let me assure you that they have - and they've moved ..... away from nets mainly.

Why is it, for instance, that habitats which have been subject to all the bad things that man kind can throw at them in the way of water quality and habitat destruction, recover astronomically as soon as nets are removed from that habitat? It's a curious thing and we all know this happens, but some of us appear to have forgotten this very pertinent fact which is of great relevance - along with a hell of a lot more facts about netting that don't really need mentioning once this fact is presented.

Until we address our netting problem, we won't have a sustainable fishery. If we expect the current fishery managers and gov to address our netting problem, then we are destined for great disappointment.

[manta man]

If my understanding of the identity of Mod 2 is correct, then I would suggest that Mod 2 hasn't really thought at all when he wrote this little piece. After all the debates we have had on the issue of fish sustainability, Mod 2, and the massive amounts of evidence that I have presented during those debates, some of which you accepted, your failure to mention nets as being a cause of fish population decline indicates to me that your thoughts are lacking thought and you are ignoring the bleeding obvious. Although I note that you're not even sure that populations have declined - but let me assure you that they have - and they've moved ..... away from nets mainly.

Why is it, for instance, that habitats which have been subject to all the bad things that man kind can throw at them in the way of water quality and habitat destruction, recover astronomically as soon as nets are removed from that habitat? It's a curious thing and we all know this happens, but some of us appear to have forgotten this very pertinent fact which is of great relevance - along with a hell of a lot more facts about netting that don't really need mentioning once this fact is presented.

Until we address our netting problem, we won't have a sustainable fishery. If we expect the current fishery managers and gov to address our netting problem, then we are destined for great disappointment.

Long time no hear, anyway welcome back. I totally agree with what your saying, you need to get rid of the Nets inshore and beaches. No amount of Rec Fisherman can catch as many fish in 1 fowl swoop, as with a net. The trouble is it"s not only the amount of Legal Fish they obtain, it"s also the amounts of By-Catch which is totally disregarded. Oh and one more thing, where is the best place in S/East Qld to catch Quality Whiting and in numbers. Yep you might have guessed, Southport,Broady and the Nerang River. But why, theirs more Homes and Pollution, than i care to imagine. One would have to think mmm maybe because of the No Netting in some areas

[SCREAMER]

If my understanding of the identity of Mod 2 is correct, then I would suggest that Mod 2 hasn't really thought at all when he wrote this little piece. After all the debates we have had on the issue of fish sustainability, Mod 2, and the massive amounts of evidence that I have presented during those debates, some of which you accepted, your failure to mention nets as being a cause of fish population decline indicates to me that your thoughts are lacking thought and you are ignoring the bleeding obvious. Although I note that you're not even sure that populations have declined - but let me assure you that they have - and they've moved ..... away from nets mainly.
Why is it, for instance, that habitats which have been subject to all the bad things that man kind can throw at them in the way of water quality and habitat destruction, recover astronomically as soon as nets are removed from that habitat? It's a curious thing and we all know this happens, but some of us appear to have forgotten this very pertinent fact which is of great relevance - along with a hell of a lot more facts about netting that don't really need mentioning once this fact is presented.
Until we address our netting problem, we won't have a sustainable fishery. If we expect the current fishery managers and gov to address our netting problem, then we are destined for great disappointment.

I have to take you to task on this, I can't see where Mod2 claims this to be an exhaustive list. After all there is no mention of vehicle oil and tyre residue entering waterways, dredging, emptying bilges, outboard emmisions or a raft of other things.

Perhaps he didn't feel the need to point out the "bleeding obvious" as you call it. Take a look around the site and you will find post after post after post about the impact of commercial fishing. Against that look for posts where someone mentions recreational impacts or any of the other points he raised.

Considering for almost every species fished for both recreationally and commercially the ratio is 2 to 1 or more. Meaning for every tonne caught by coms, 2 tonne or more are caught by recs. We are talking the like of whiting, bream, flathead, tailor, snapper etc. Maybe there should be more discussion?

Many of the others are almost never raised and have a much bigger impact than most people would think.

Kudos Mod2 for raising something other than the "bleeding obvious"

[trymyluck]

I have to take you to task on this, I can't see where Mod2 claims this to be an exhaustive list. After all there is no mention of vehicle oil and tyre residue entering waterways, dredging, emptying bilges, outboard emmisions or a raft of other things.

Perhaps he didn't feel the need to point out the "bleeding obvious" as you call it. Take a look around the site and you will find post after post after post about the impact of commercial fishing. Against that look for posts where someone mentions recreational impacts or any of the other points he raised.

Considering for almost every species fished for both recreationally and commercially the ratio is 2 to 1 or more. Meaning for every tonne caught by coms, 2 tonne or more are caught by recs. We are talking the like of whiting, bream, flathead, tailor, snapper etc. Maybe there should be more discussion?

Many of the others are almost never raised and have a much bigger impact than most people would think.

Kudos Mod2 for raising something other than the "bleeding obvious"

Can you put up links to data that backs up the 2 to 1 ratio, personally I think you need to do a bit more research.

[SCREAMER]

Google is your friend. Just type in whatever state fishery you are in, the species you want, and something like the word stocks. Should get you more links and reading than you will ever want.

Althoughs ya best bees careful lotsa information from them scientistic type fellas and we all nose what theys is like. :D

[Slider]

I suspect Screamer that Mod 2 didn't choose to not mention nets because they are a bleeding obvious cause of depleting fish stocks, but because he doesn't believe they are a factor in our fisheries at all.

Irrespective, they must be of course and unlike the majority of other factors such as habitat loss, pollutants, and nutrient run off, nets are easily addressable.

Whilst recreational impacts must also be a factor, it is quite apparent that fish populations are not depleted by recs when under an appropriate management structure of bag and size limits. This is demonstrated by the recovery of fish populations following net bans in specific regions - Lakes Macquarie and Illawarra being classic examples along with Sydney Hbr. Even when the rec take is substantially higher than that of commercial. There are good and identifiable reasons why this is so - namely because nets displace species from their spawning and feeding grounds with impacts on recruitment - an impact that recs do not have.

It may be perceived that to close areas to commercial netting will reduce the supply of locally caught seafood, but quite the opposite in actuality is what occurs. NSW, for example, saw an increase in commercial yields following implementation of 30 net free regions and the buy back of 300 inshore commercial net licences in 2001. While this may seem counterintuitive, it is actually to be expected if one understands the dynamics of fish that are targeted by commercial nets.

So, we can ponder all of the factors that Mod 2 has nominated for as long as we like and do nothing about any of them because it's too hard or expensive, or we can address our netting problem.

[gruntahunta]

Ok....who do you suspect Mod 2 is?

[ifishcq1]

Ok....who do you suspect Mod 2 is?
I don't think I could "pin" point him out but

screamer by the way at a recent pro conference it was suggested that the commercial sector chip in to worthy stocking programs since in places like the Fitzroy River the pro take is like 10-1 or more (google might have bullshirted you in our area)
the suggestion was for only one or two hundred each raising around $20,000 but it was shot down
after the commercial take in the Fitzroy in the past few wets the local fish stocking groups are questioning whether it is worth the effort to continue if they are only lining the pockets of a couple of greedy pricks
like anywhere and any industry there are cowboys and there are people who do the right thing
cheers

[SCREAMER]

I don't think I could "pin" point him out but

screamer by the way at a recent pro conference it was suggested that the commercial sector chip in to worthy stocking programs since in places like the Fitzroy River the pro take is like 10-1 or more (google might have bullshirted you in our area)
the suggestion was for only one or two hundred each raising around $20,000 but it was shot down
after the commercial take in the Fitzroy in the past few wets the local fish stocking groups are questioning whether it is worth the effort to continue if they are only lining the pockets of a couple of greedy pricks
like anywhere and any industry there are cowboys and there are people who do the right thing
cheers

I have no idea what that has to do with me. I'm not nor have I ever been a commercial fisher. I was quoting in general bread and butter species averages. 10-1 for a very specific river for a single species is no surprise. Might as well quote sea mullet 99.9% commercially caught so there SCREAMER you are wrong :D For the record I do NOT support stocking outside of dams.

[SCREAMER]

I suspect Screamer that Mod 2 didn't choose to not mention nets because they are a bleeding obvious cause of depleting fish stocks, but because he doesn't believe they are a factor in our fisheries at all.

Irrespective, they must be of course and unlike the majority of other factors such as habitat loss, pollutants, and nutrient run off, nets are easily addressable.

Whilst recreational impacts must also be a factor, it is quite apparent that fish populations are not depleted by recs when under an appropriate management structure of bag and size limits. This is demonstrated by the recovery of fish populations following net bans in specific regions - Lakes Macquarie and Illawarra being classic examples along with Sydney Hbr. Even when the rec take is substantially higher than that of commercial. There are good and identifiable reasons why this is so - namely because nets displace species from their spawning and feeding grounds with impacts on recruitment - an impact that recs do not have.

It may be perceived that to close areas to commercial netting will reduce the supply of locally caught seafood, but quite the opposite in actuality is what occurs. NSW, for example, saw an increase in commercial yields following implementation of 30 net free regions and the buy back of 300 inshore commercial net licences in 2001. While this may seem counterintuitive, it is actually to be expected if one understands the dynamics of fish that are targeted by commercial nets.

So, we can ponder all of the factors that Mod 2 has nominated for as long as we like and do nothing about any of them because it's too hard or expensive, or we can address our netting problem.

I don't know who mod2 is although it seems you are implying they are a commercial fisher? Easily addressable as in banning? I have heard the greenies say the same about all fishing. Ban it so we can save the sea kittens.

Data is most often abused when those interpreting it are looking for a specific outcome. Quoting specific areas where netting is no longer allowed and stating the stocks recovered is misleading. There are several factors at work. Those specific areas will have been chosen for commercial fishing as they would be the most productive for them. You have removed a large amount of effort.

The effort simply gets redistirbuted. Taking licenses out of the system means more targeted fishing.

You argument is the same as the GBRMP rubbish where a year after introduction it was hailed as winner because they were finding more fish in the marine park. Some how 4 to 10 year fish had "grown" in the area after only 12 months :D Could it have been 33% of the reef was now "quieter" and like most animals many fish prefer that. The other 66% was now under greater pressure so less fish than previously.

Did I say it was good to see something other than a commercial fishing bash thread *lol*

[Slider]

No, I'm not implying that Mod 2 is a commercial fisher - I know he's not. It's not about pro bashing either - if Greg had made mention of nets as being a factor in our fisheries then I wouldn't need to participate here at all. The non-mention of nets, which, based on the evidence would be the single most significant factor, is inferring that they needn't be considered which is ludicrous.

'Easily addressable' as in banning the use of nets in locations deemed to be suitable - ie of high ecological importance (spawning/ feeding/nursery grounds) and of high recreational and tourism benefit to the community. Economic returns to the community from recreational fishing far outweigh that from commercial and businesses associated with recreational fishing must be afforded the opportunity to flourish. As it stands, these businesses in Qld are going backwards with recreational fishing tourists heading elsewhere such as to the N.T. or N.Z. and local participation rates falling.

The return of fish to areas closed to netting is well documented, but I'm struggling to comprehend what aspect of this is misleading. The buy back of licences, if done properly, should maintain effort at more sustainable levels in areas permitted to be fished and which are supplemented by protection of spawning/nursery stock. There is nothing misleading about the evidence being that the remaining individual commercial fishers catch more than they did before implementation of net free regions and the overall yield remaining consistent or increasing at the same time as recreational fishers are catching more and bigger fish in the net free regions. When many licence holders would love to be bought out and larger individual yields quite obviously preferable, where is the problem here?

[SCREAMER]

Just another hijacked thread, I'm done.

[tunaticer]

'Easily addressable' as in banning the use of nets in locations deemed to be suitable - ie of high ecological importance (spawning/ feeding/nursery grounds) and of high recreational and tourism benefit to the community. Economic returns to the community from recreational fishing far outweigh that from commercial and businesses associated with recreational fishing must be afforded the opportunity to flourish. As it stands, these businesses in Qld are going backwards with recreational fishing tourists heading elsewhere such as to the N.T. or N.Z. and local participation rates falling.

Lindsay, 100% of Australia's coastline now is part of the tourism area, there is nowhere left where you can not get a charter boat to take you outside of green zones. The general public invades every square inch as well.
Where would you suggest a high impact commercial fishery zone these days be placed?

Secondly, your penchance for forcing the net buy back schemes will not benefit Australia in the long run. Fewer commercial nets being used will increase the import of seafoods from overseas, therefore increasing our exposure to foreign diseases and damaging our economy. Some of the guys that get "bought out" will stay within the seafood industry for the dollars that can be made importing cheap "seafood" from overseas for maximum profit.

The better way for Australia to manage it's fishery is to stop exports and imports of seafoods. That will regulate the tonnages taken, the viable licences and the viable operators much more than banning this or that.

Primarily, the first thing we have to do is stop the bio-security hazzards, if one foreign disease outbreak occurs here it can have decades of impact, if not permanent impact. The east coast of Australia had a foreign disease that impacted the pilchards stocks massively, that one outbreak had nearly two decades of impact before the stocks recovered to being a viable fishery again in that area.

That is by far in excess of your netting issues.

[Horse]

To single out one particular issue is going to fail in the long run. Our fish stocks are under increasing pressure from both recreational and commercial harvesting. Pollution and environmental degradation are increasing at an alarming rate. We will have to take a holistic approach if we want to see any long term improvements

[Slider]

But to ignore the one issue Neil which is easily addressable and known to be high impact, is illogical. The results attained by NFAs are speedy whereas to address any of the other issues, which I agree must also occur if possible, will take much, much longer while human pops continue to rise and require massive taxpayer funded measures.

As mentioned in my previous posts Tunaticer - net free regions increase, or at least maintain the commercial yield ..... which reduces the dependency on imports and sustains our fish resources for longer. To not have net free regions increases our dependency on imports and increasingly so into the future. Greater viability per licence also reduces the price of locally caught seafood and thus import dependency which is price driven. At the same time, the necessity to export is reduced because Aussies are more able to afford locally caught product.

At this point there are proposed to be 10 net free regions in Qld. These would total less than 5% of the existing inshore area available to commercial netting. If the commercial fleet is reduced by 10% (say), then there is an increased area to be fished per licence.
It is one thing for there to be ample access to fishing locations outside of green zones, it is entirely another for there to be healthy fish pops in these locations which is the incentive for recreational fishing tourists to come to Qld and local participation rates to be maintained.


Also relevant - if Qld's fish stocks continue to deplete, then pressure will increase to close areas to all fishing which is unnecessary and undesirable.. NFAs are a conservation tool that enhance both commercial and recreational sectors and prevent further green zones.