PDA

View Full Version : commercial vs recreational



maat
13-11-2006, 04:36 PM
been in many debates over the year with mates and many others of which is worse, commercial or recreational, i personally think commercial has more impact. I am curios to see what you think.

cheers m

dogsbody
13-11-2006, 05:35 PM
Gday Matt

Im going to hold off voting on this one because it should'nt be about whos's having the most impact ,it's about the damage being done as a whole and how can we as a whole come together and minimise the effects of our ways on the environment. No im not a greeny just concerned about the future of fishing. :)

Dave.

NeilD
13-11-2006, 05:43 PM
I think it depends on what fishery we are looking at and where it is.

I would suggest that in both cases the impact should be such that the effort is sustainable in the long term

Neil

Nic
13-11-2006, 05:45 PM
Which party has the greater impact would also vary according to the species and location. A hot debate though.

bidkev
13-11-2006, 06:03 PM
I think I know where I stand atm ::) ::) I'm convinced that DPI&F is doing all that it can to create a sustainable fishery via BRD's, square mesh, etc and I'm also pretty sure that the pros are adopting the methods forwarded by DPI&F. SE Qld is a prawn fishery and the allowable other species is minimal (IMHO). My knowledge of other areas is limited.

What I am strongly against is estuarine netting by pros particularly in small breeding systems such as the Pine. There are 4 licences (to the best of my knowledge) for that small fishery and despite BRD's one only has to follow the trawlers in there to see the dead floating by-catch. BRD's are effective only where the fish is mature enough to swim faster than the trawl, and small fish, being more susceptible to injury, are less likely to escape.

I am amazed at just how many dead juvenile trevors can be found floating behind these trawls in comparison to the amount of mature specimens caught in this area......that has to indicate something. :'(

Weighed up against recreational catches in that area??? It's a long time since anyone had a really good day on the Pine, that I know of (or else they're keeping it quiet). A couple of lizards and 3 or 4 bream seems exceptional this year and a blank seems the norm for most who used to once catch regularly.

kev

Poodroo
13-11-2006, 06:20 PM
Well this is sure to be a one sided poll seeing as the majority of us on here are rec fishos. If there was a Commercial Fisho forum and the same poll was raised I am sure that it would swing the other way. I did say commercial in my vote by the way. ;D I'd like to believe that there is a great percentage of us who catch and release, another great percentage who go fishing and catch nothing but a workboot or shopping trolly, and a small percentage of us who occasionally get a feed. ;) Can't see how rec fishermen/women could seriously impact the fish stocks.
Regards,

Poodroo

Pharkmeh
13-11-2006, 06:32 PM
I think I know where I stand atm ::) ::) I'm convinced that DPI&F is doing all that it can to create a sustainable fishery via BRD's, square mesh, etc and I'm also pretty sure that the pros are adopting the methods forwarded by DPI&F. SE Qld is a prawn fishery and the allowable other species is minimal (IMHO). My knowledge of other areas is limited.

What I am strongly against is estuarine netting by pros particularly in small breeding systems such as the Pine. There are 4 licences (to the best of my knowledge) for that small fishery and despite BRD's one only has to follow the trawlers in there to see the dead floating by-catch. BRD's are effective only where the fish is mature enough to swim faster than the trawl, and small fish, being more susceptible to injury, are less likely to escape.

I am amazed at just how many dead juvenile trevors can be found floating behind these trawls in comparison to the amount of mature specimens caught in this area......that has to indicate something. #:'(

Weighed up against recreational catches in that area??? It's a long time since anyone had a really good day on the Pine, that I know of (or else they're keeping it quiet). A couple of lizards and 3 or 4 bream seems exceptional this year and a blank seems the norm for most who used to once catch regularly.

kev





ditto that kev

keep the pro's at sea I reckon, at least till stocks improve - the poor ole pine has just about been raped to empty...

PinHead
13-11-2006, 06:54 PM
the first question is:

Is there being any damage done?

if there is where is the proof in both qualitative and quantitive forms.

onerabbit
13-11-2006, 07:04 PM
[quote author=Poodroo link=1163399772/0#5 date=11634060 #;) Can't see how rec fishermen/women could seriously impact the fish stocks.
Regards,

Poodroo
[/quote

I think if you added up ALL the rec fisho's that fish over a year, then tally their catch, you may be surprised!!!!!

Add the idiots of all kinds, small fish, too many fish, etc,

Muzz

bg1000
13-11-2006, 07:21 PM
Both of these industries will always exsist in Queensland, so as mentioned in previous posts the issue here is to make sure that the impacts are sustanible as a whole. Also that there is a balance of fairness between recocreational and commercial sectors. After seeing what happened in north Queensland with all the green zone both reco and commercial sectors need to band together. I beleive that both sectors have great concern for the future of this uindustry, from a recreational point of view it is an important leisure activity and from a commercial point of view it provides incomes and employment andwell as a fresh feed for those who don't fish.

At least at the moment the DPI in Queensland is having a real go at keeping fish for the future, at present there is a restructure of inshore fish management, with bags limits and reducing number of commercial licenses and applying quotas.

I think the biggest difficulty comes with the ever growing population in Queensland.

So my answer to the question is that the resource needs to be managed in a fair way between reco and commercial whilst being sustainible.

Poodroo
13-11-2006, 07:28 PM
Well onerabbit you may be right or you maybe wrong too. There is no evidence supporting that we as a whole are affecting fish stocks. I just did a Mud Island trip with Scalem last Saturday and considering how many Ausfishers said they were going to be on the Bay we practically had it all to ourselves and only met one Ausfisher being Marlin Mike. Out of all the people who own boats and like to fish the bay just as an example given that the weather was picture perfect I was expecting to have to fight for a spot out there but it was surprisingly empty. The fact that people catch undersized fish and keep them, or perhaps catch more than the legal bag limit but I would like to think that these sorts of people are very much a minority group. When we go out and see loads of fish on the sounder I know that they are their in great numbers. I have also seen quotes from people who scuba dive around the reefs and they are in awe at the quantity of fish and the quality. I have yet to be convinced otherwise that we collectively as a fishing community are depleating the fish stocks too significantly. I still catch fish in the Bay and I still catch them in the Pin yet people say these places are fished out.

Poodroo

Reef_fisher
13-11-2006, 07:28 PM
sorry I voted the pro's. I still beleive they should be able to earn a living, but, I go with pharkmeh and kingtin, keep em out to sea so that a least the large by catch (which is mostly dead) can be returned as food. Netting esturine areas not only rapes the area but destroys what little area the fish have left to breed and live. Once you strip an area bare then it is pretty much stuffed without being artificialy rebuilt and we know how the greenies feel about human intervention.

snelly1971
13-11-2006, 07:40 PM
I have been involved in both industries and there are points to be made on both sides....

I have seen alot of Rec fishers do the wrong things....especially when it comes to taking or dis-membering under size crayfish...this is something that a Pro would not do as the fines are very sevear as compared to Rec Fines....But on the other hand....i have seen Trawlers catch 20 - 100 tonnes of snotty Trevalle only to cut the net and dump them back into the ocean DEAD because they have no quota for them....so i suppose Pro would have to be worse because of the numbers being dumped...it would take alot of rec fishers to catch 100 tonne of fish....

Bay+Beyond
13-11-2006, 08:39 PM
I have been on both sides of the fence,and for my part i voted pro's.

I have no problem with the commercial hook line fishermen (this does not include the longliners), where the real problem beigins is with netting. It takes all of the fish in the area, whereas a hook line fisherman will only catch the hungry (feeding) fish. The nets clean the whole lot up, not to mention the damage done to the seabed.

I wish the Fisheries ministers would get their ar$e$ out of the office and spend time on the water and at the ramps, not only in this state but all over australia, and see first hand what goes on.

Of course this will be one sided, but when will pollies realise the true value of the family fishing in the pine river (qld), Brisbane River, and alot of other areas around australia.

One pi$$ed off fisho being told i am to blame why there needs to be closures in moreton bay when a good day fishing results in a few snapper, or mackeral. 10Kg tops compared to the net fishos who talk in tonnes.

Thommo

Obi___Wan
13-11-2006, 10:37 PM
I spent 6 months up in the Gulf in 74, sort of a working holiday and was absoultely amazed at the quantity of juvenile fish that was killed in each trawl, the weight of the prawns just pushes them through the meshes of the net, and i am talking tonnes of fish (over the trip) mostly salmon but there were plenty of other species as well. Fish, crabs, scallops, pearl shells (live) no pearls though, turtles, saw sharks, rays, sea snakes, coral, live shells of all descriptons.

I realize that today there are methods to exclude certain species, but how well do they work?

By the same token i have been part of the old method of fishing competitions, you know, a point a fish point a pound and therefore have seen many tonnes of fish killed in the name of competition. At times i think back and feel that i have done the wrong thing by taking part in these competitions, but then that was what every one was doing in those day. I guess that is one of the reasons that i now let 90% of my catch go.

Again in this area things have changed and competitions have changed, catch and release etc.

When it all boils down i think as a total group of fisherman (rec & pro) we are all changing the way we do things for the better. I sincerely hope that as a combined group we can make it work eventually for all our sakes.

One thing i do agree with is that i believe that the netting in the nursery should stop, that is the Pine and any other tributary of Moreton Bay and perhaps even Moreton Bay.

During the last 12 months my son and i have caught a lot of bream that have an indent in their backs, mostly between the head and the first ray of the dorsal. I believe that this is the result of being caught in a net!! wether its a cast net or a beam trawl net who knows, these fish have survived, how many did not??

I also believe that a greater attempt should be made to sucessfully build and run fish, crab farms, just like the prawn farms to eventually erase the need to commercially harvest wild stocks, increase/decrease size limits where necessary on Rec fishers and adjust the bag limits, after all how many fish do you really need? most fish are to good just to be caught only once.

OBI_WAN

Obi___Wan
13-11-2006, 10:40 PM
OH HELL I FORGOT :o

Pharkmeh, where can i get some burley like yours? [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif]

OBI_WAN

bdm56
13-11-2006, 10:40 PM
I think a lot of damage is done by netting. Both pro - legal and rec - illegal.

aussiefool
14-11-2006, 04:21 AM
20+ years ago it would of been pretty much even as how did the most damage but now as more and more rec fishers are into C&R the balance has tipped to the commercial fishermen, but I think that this is because we as a public at whole are becomming more aware of the enviroment and the inpact humans are having on it. The by-catch now is prob. no more now than 20 odd yrs ago just that now we are looking at it more closely where before we just took it as part of life.

I also believe that all river systems should be closed to all netting Aust wide (both pro and rec ) and a yearly 3mth no fishing(no take) every year for at least the next 5 years. Sounds harsh I know but if we are really serious on preserving our fish stocks we have to start making the hard calls sooner rather than later

Aussiefool
Andrew

Brett1907
14-11-2006, 10:14 AM
I think the seasonal closures of different fish is a great idea (has worked down south with snapper). Also, netting should be banned from any river/esturies. I have seen a trawler working the coomera river and there is no way I could catch the same quantity of fish if I was there everyday for the next fifty years.

We do need commercial fishing as not all of us reco's catch a feed every time we go out. We need somewhere to buy fish so the missus doesn't think we are totally useless. ;D ;D

I do a combination of catch/keep and catch/release. Always check size and look at the fisheries website every few months to make sure I have the latest size and catch limits.

Brett

Deiter
14-11-2006, 10:47 AM
Before you catch fish, the fish have to be there.

For the fish to be there, there must be a reasonable habitat for them.

In our bay, 99% of fish - habitat is on/ around structure of some kind.

99% of the time, that structure is on /around the sea bed.

Follow a trawler in the bay and look at the colour of the water behind the nets. even with crystal clear water around, it resembles a gravy trail.

The bottom is being trawled (trowled?) flat. Bombies, weed beds, grass beds, everything. Only the bigger bombies and structure that catch (damage) nets is left.

No arguement as far as i am concerned.

Damo

bidkev
14-11-2006, 12:18 PM
I realize that today there are methods to exclude certain species, but how well do they work?

OBI_WAN

This debate is opening up again so in light of the fact that there are a lot of newbies here since the thread below, it may pay to revisit it. There is a full description of the Fishery, and an explanation and diagrams of By-Catch Reduction devices and their effectiveness. It's a fairly long thread and in spite of the fact that I was a major contributor, I still think it is relative and interesting ;D ;D

http://www.ausfish.com.au/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1143797596/0

An excerpt from the thread that shows just how ludicrous some research is. ::)

Take this 1997 research of the Pine: Not the Pine River that I have experience of and just how did they arrive at this? No mention of methodology in the research at all Shocked

2.71% of Queensland harvest? :o ::)from I.31% of total Qld trips? That means that the Pine had a 100% more better catch rate than the average rest of Qld. That beggars belief No mention of flathead catch or prawn in the rankings catch despite the fact that some old timers have told me that flathead used to be in abundance 10 to 15 yrs ago and that they used to catch the "odd" snapper ::) Snapper are in the rankings and flathead aren't. So I recieve anecdotal evidence that flathead should be in the rankings but not snapper> The researchers have collected anecdotal evidence that snapper should be in the ratings and flathead shouldn't? ::)

In the 1997 RFISH diary program (not a comprehensive
geographical survey), ranked recreational catch for Pine River
included Whiting, Bream, Winter Whiting, Diver Whiting,
Snapper (Squire), Sand Crab, Catfish Unspecified, Toad Fish,
Flathead, Summer Whiting; Fisheries values (Hays Inlet FHA):
Australian bass, bream, blue salmon, estuary cod, flathead,
garfish, jewfish, luderick, mangrove jack, sea mullet, tailor,
whiting, mud crabs, sand crabs, banana prawns, eastern king
prawns

Total estimated recreational catch (harvest & released) for Pine
River in 1997 was 1,509,755 fish (2.71% of Qld total) from
141,092 trips (1.31% of Qld total). Estimated catch (top 5
species by no.) Whiting 351,799, Bream 230,598, Winter
Whiting 203,028, Diver Whiting 190,131, Snapper (Squire)
127,298

kev

banshee
14-11-2006, 12:47 PM
I think those of you that think rec fishers are without blame or are not right up there with the commercial sector are being naive to say the least,after all,bag limits were introduced to the rec sector to stem the carnage we were inflcting.Recreational angling is the most participated outdoor activity in this country with daylight and golf tieing for second and the argument that a trawler caught more than me on any one occasion dosen't wash due to the sheer numbers(rec)participating on a daily basis.While trawlers do decimate the weedbeds/flats and juvenile fish they do not opperate on reef if they did they would have more to worry about than torn nets,though this a likely outcome it would more than likely end up with a boat on the bottom and possible loss of life.As for no proof of rec angling damage(Poodroo) consider this(anecdotal),eight years ago it was a talking point if someone turned up with any more than a couple of Pearlies in my area (Ballina/Evans) in those days there were no bag or size limits on these fish,since the introduction of bag limits these fish have flourished to the point that some days it's not unusual to throw back atleast the bag limit again and one can confidently be selective if the first couple are rats,the interesting point here is that Pearlies don't trap and don't stay on a drop line so the commercial sector is very much on a level playing field useing the same gear as us and the rules have only been changed for us.As for an answer to the question I have no idea but should a comprehensive study be carried out don't expect us to come out smelling like roses.

Camo
14-11-2006, 04:12 PM
Before you catch fish, the fish have to be there.

For the fish to be there, there must be a reasonable habitat for them.

In our bay, 99% of fish - habitat is on/ around structure of some kind.

99% of the time, that structure is on /around the sea bed.

Follow a trawler in the bay and look at the colour of the water behind the nets. even with crystal clear water around, it resembles a gravy trail.

The bottom is being trawled (trowled?) flat. Bombies, weed beds, grass beds, everything. Only the bigger bombies and structure that catch (damage) nets is left.

No arguement as far as i am concerned.

Damo

Too right Damo, the damage caused to the habitat by netting is a huge problem. Added to that, is the prevailing attitude of the professionals, which is that because they make their living from it, the resource belongs to them. They see recreational fisherman as thieves stealing their lively hood. In my opinion they, along with foreshore development, are the major contributors to the depleation of fish stocks, not the recreational fisherman.

Camo

Pharkmeh
14-11-2006, 07:07 PM
OH HELL I #FORGOT #:o

Pharkmeh, where can i get some burley like yours? [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif]

OBI_WAN


:-? ::) ;) :-X 8-)

Adamy
15-11-2006, 01:58 AM
Total estimated recreational catch (harvest & released) for Pine
River in 1997 was 1,509,755 fish (2.71% of Qld total) from
141,092 trips (1.31% of Qld total). Estimated catch (top 5
species by no.) Whiting 351,799, Bream 230,598, Winter
Whiting 203,028, Diver Whiting 190,131, Snapper (Squire)
127,298

Kingtin, those "stats" are amazing!!!! :o :o from what they are saying each trip someone catches on average 10.something fish... no way... and if someone misses out then thats 20plus fish someone else has to catch. Not only that but a snapper (squire) is caught almost every trip?? you gotta be kidding me... If the pine was THAT reliable then every man and his dog would fish there! ::)

Who are the goons that come up with this sort of crap??? :-?

Now I've had my rant... I'll go back and read the rest of this incredulous tale!! ;)

Adam

p.s BTW I reckon Commercial guys have the biggest impact on fish stocks, followed by greenies and greeny loving pollies (who are closing down all the best fishing spots) then a long way behind all of them and falling fast (due to closures ::)) is the humble rec angler... oh and dont forget the 80/20 rule it works for recs - but not for comms.

bidkev
15-11-2006, 08:39 PM
Total estimated recreational catch (harvest & released) for Pine
River in 1997 was 1,509,755 fish (2.71% of Qld total) from
141,092 trips (1.31% of Qld total). Estimated catch (top 5
species by no.) Whiting 351,799, Bream 230,598, Winter
Whiting 203,028, Diver Whiting 190,131, Snapper (Squire)
127,298

Kingtin, those "stats" are amazing!!!! :o :o from what they are saying each trip someone catches on average 10.something fish... no way... and if someone misses out then thats 20plus fish someone else has to catch. Not only that but a snapper (squire) is caught almost every trip?? you gotta be kidding me... If the pine was THAT reliable then every man and his dog would fish there! ::)

Who are the goons that come up with this sort of crap??? :-?

.

Rfish from the DPI&F as usual. anecdotal evidence which in my experience is far from the truth

http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/fishweb/16303.html

How is the RFISH program organised?

The cornerstone of the program is the statewide RFISH surveys, which have three components:

*
the telephone survey
*
the diary survey
*
the socioeconomic survey

Statewide RFISH surveys were conducted in 1996, 1998, 2001 and 2004.

The other elements of the program are:

* the National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey
* standardising boat ramp surveys throughout the State, whatever organisation conducts them
* searching historical collections of fishing club competition records
Top of page

Statewide telephone surveys

The telephone surveys have two main aims: to determine the participation rate and other characteristics of recreational fishing in Queensland, and to find about 4500 volunteers to keep a diary of their fishing activities in the following 12 months (that is, in 1997, 1999, 2002 and 2005). The first telephone survey was completed in late 1996 after more than 21 000 people had been contacted. The survey was repeated in 1998, 2001 and 2004, with about 22 000 people interviewed each time.

Results from the most recent survey suggest that about 735 000 Queensland residents had fished in the 12 months before the survey.

The fourth statewide RFISH survey began in November 2004 with a telephone survey of around 25,000 Queensland households. From these households about 5,000 people have been selected to participate in a 12-month diary program during 2005. Details from previous fishing surveys can be found at Recreational fishing survey results .
Statewide angler diary surveys

The aim of the statewide angler diary survey is to determine where people fish and what they catch. The survey, which covers a 12-month period, was run in 1997, 1999, 2002 and the 2005 survey is currently under way. Results from these surveys are used to estimate the number and type of fish caught by anglers in each of the 15 statistical areas around the state.

Sufficient numbers of people are selected for the diary surveys to ensure that reasonable estimates can be made of the harvest of keynote species by statistical area.

This information is used to develop appropriate fisheries' management arrangements and so help ensure that the State's recreational and commercial fisheries are developed sustainably.
Socioeconomic surveys

Participants in the diary program were sent a detailed questionnaire that collected information on what motivated them to go fishing, how much they spent on recreational fishing and what they thought about existing fisheries management arrangements.

Adamy
16-11-2006, 01:16 AM
Hmmmm... I feel like the little kid who went up to his dad to ask how babies were born... the dad scratches his head and says... go ask your mother, the kid replies... I didnt want to know THAT much about it!! ;D ::)

Survey method sounds alright in theory and the data collected is probably OK - I think they've made errors in the extrapolation, because the results are simply unbelievable.

However, to validate the research project - you would need to know how the diary participants were selected - where it was random, random stratisfied etc. Otherwise the data could be biased - for instance they could choose fishos who fish more than say 20 times per year - so they get more usable data, if this is the case then the skill level of this kind of fisho would exceed that of say a once a year family vacation fisho - who would in fact be more likely to represent the greater population of fishos... IF you follow my drift. It all comes back to lies, lies damn lies and statistics. :D

Adam

Brett1907
16-11-2006, 11:47 PM
Was talking to my father up in Mission Beach today. Told me what his Father-in-law told him.

Apparently Box jellyfish weren't a problem approx30 - 40 years ago. One spring/summer trawlers from further north and netted between to coast and the islands. The following year the stingers arrived in plague proportions. It is believed by many locals in the area that the trawlers either decimated a species of fish in the area or destroyed their structure and they didin't return the following year. Have also heard similar stories from people I know down here who have lived up north.

I know it is second hand, but makes you think.

Brett

Phil-Fishbin
17-11-2006, 05:17 PM
,Commercial and recreational fisherman both have very different impacts on some very different fisheries .
Be specific about a fishery if you like and voice your concerns ,as some of you have, but this pro bashing for pro bashings sake is becoming a bit boring.
::)