Queensland Conservation asks Qld Government

[BAIT_MAN]

Queensland Conservation asks the next Queensland Government to:
Establish a continuous Marine Park from the NSW border to the NT border. Once established, a comprehensive network of no-take zones should be established in the Park to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem values. (No-take zones should be established in accordance with the IUCN standard of a 20-30% minimum). Where commercial fishers are genuinely displaced by no-take zones, the Government should contribute to the buy-out of fishing licences to avoid displacement of effort. Extend Reef Water Quality Protection Plan (RWQPP) concept to all coastal catchments.
Provide an extra $2 Million in funding for existing marine park management and planning and identification and assessment of new parks.
Establish a network of Dugong Protected Areas in the northern Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) through netting closures and expand and strengthen the Dugong Protected Area network in the southern GBRWHA.
Work with the National Oceans Office and the Northern Territory Government to develop the Northern Regional Marine Plan that includes a comprehensive, adequate and representative network of marine sanctuaries which protect 20-50% of all bioregions in highly protected areas.
Introduce a saltwater recreational fishing licence to Queensland state waters. A licensing system would provide revenue for research, education, habitat protection and rehabilitation. It would also improve the ability to communicate directly with recreational fishers and allow accurate measurement of the recreational fishing catch.
Commit $250,000 for research into alternative methods of prawn harvesting. The money should be offered as a research grant and joint commercial fisher/conservation initiatives should be encouraged.
Finalise protection for the critically endangered Grey Nurse Shark’s critical habitat at Wolf Rock, Henderson Rock and Cherub’s Cave and ensure that the remaining three critical habitat sites are assessed as soon as possible.
Undertake an urgent programme in consultation with Indigenous communities to reduce the Indigenous take of dugong and green turtles to enable their protection and recovery to sustainable populations.
In collaboration with coastguard, increase policing of fishing and tourism activities in unpatrolled regions, particularly the Coral Sea.

[dazza]

hi all,
excuse my ignorance, where are the other 3 grey nurse areas that need critical evaluation.
whats the money they will be green zoned under the excuse of "shark protection" different from no take zone, as they are not worried about fish just the gns, when the moreton bay marine park gets reviewed
cheers
dazza

[GES]

Queensland Conservation asks the next Queensland Government to:
Establish a continuous Marine Park from the NSW border to the NT border. Once established, a comprehensive network of no-take zones should be established in the Park to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem values. (No-take zones should be established in accordance with the IUCN standard of a 20-30% minimum).

Introduce a saltwater recreational fishing licence to Queensland state waters. A licensing system would provide revenue for research, education, habitat protection and rehabilitation. It would also improve the ability to communicate directly with recreational fishers and allow accurate measurement of the recreational fishing catch.

In collaboration with coastguard, increase policing of fishing and tourism activities in unpatrolled regions, particularly the Coral Sea.


Well, how about that !!!
Recreational fishers to pay licence fees to fund having their fishing areas further reduced, more heavily policed, fund research projects designed to restrict fishing and close even more areas down, fund rehabilitation of habitat areas destroyed by industry and Government failure to manage the environment in years past, have their catches monitored (most likely to give reason for further cuts being imposed on their catch)

What a great idea!! :-? :-?

GES

[Adamy]

This is my favorite part:


establish a network of Dugong Protected Areas in the northern Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) through netting closures and expand and strengthen the Dugong Protected Area network in the southern GBRWHA.

Does that mean they want to fence the dugong in???Is that the worlds dumbest idea or what!! Of course if you really think about it the places they will want to fence off will be all the go slow areas plus a "corridor" for the dugong to travel from place to place... no need for no-go zones or no take zones or green zones or any zones the whole -place would be "netted" off. :-[

Someone please tell me that this isnt what they are talking about here!! :-/

Adam

[Hornblower]

Queensland Conservation asks the next Queensland Government to:

Introduce a saltwater recreational fishing licence to Queensland state waters. A licensing system would provide revenue for research, education, habitat protection and rehabilitation. It would also improve the ability to communicate directly with recreational fishers and allow accurate measurement of the recreational fishing catch.

Commit $250,000 for research into alternative methods of prawn harvesting. The money should be offered as a research grant and joint commercial fisher/conservation initiatives should be encouraged.

Undertake an urgent programme in consultation with Indigenous communities to reduce the Indigenous take of dugong and green turtles to enable their protection and recovery to sustainable populations.

[Hornblower]

Queensland Conservation asks the next Queensland Government to:

Introduce a saltwater recreational fishing licence to Queensland state waters. A licensing system would provide revenue for research, education, habitat protection and rehabilitation. It would also improve the ability to communicate directly with recreational fishers and allow accurate measurement of the recreational fishing catch.

Commit $250,000 for research into alternative methods of prawn harvesting. The money should be offered as a research grant and joint commercial fisher/conservation initiatives should be encouraged.

Undertake an urgent programme in consultation with Indigenous communities to reduce the Indigenous take of dugong and green turtles to enable their protection and recovery to sustainable populations.






Must apologise for the first post - I don't know how I entered that in error without the comments...

The first point I want to make in relation to the licenses is the same as GES. What a hide, and they obviously want to make it mandatory for us to record and report all of our catches, otherwise it would be usless to them. But further to that point, what happens when the data they collate from our catches indicates that it doesn't back up their arguments about "No take" zones and further closures - we will all be branded a bunch of liars and lawbreakers for not reporting our full catch. They are placing us in a no win situation and still it doesn't address those that do the wrong thing. What will have changed for them - NOTHING >:( >:( >:(

My next point is that $250 000 for prawn research will get them nowhere, not even the land on which to do this research, let alone all of the monitoring equipment and resources they would need to do it. It seems that this is a smokescreen only to facilitate a level of authenicity to their claims. It seems that they should learn first to research real estate before they throw a token figure like that. Ask any Prawn farmer how much they spent in setting up their operation, they will tell you that $250 000 - even if you had the land and the tanks and dams already set up is a total nonsense.

And on the last point of the dugong - Good Luck trying to get the indigenous population to limit their ctach of turtle and dugong. They are not seriously suggesting that the few indigenous people who still carry out the tradition of eating these creatures, are having an adverse impact on their numbers. If this is so then Dugong and Turtle should have died out of our waters within the first ten thousand years of their occupation of Australia.

These people have totally lost the plot and are no closer to reality then I am a chance of going to the moon. I have said it before and I will say it again, academics, with all those letters after their names - it doesn't matter how you rearrange them, those letters will always spell "IDIOT" and this press release is a classic example.

Over and Out ;) ;) ;)

[Jeremy]

And on the last point of the dugong - Good Luck trying to get the indigenous population to #limit their ctach of turtle and dugong. #They are not seriously suggesting that the few indigenous people who still carry out the tradition of eating these creatures, are having an adverse impact on their numbers. #If this is so then Dugong and Turtle should have died out of our waters within the first ten thousand years of their occupation of Australia.

Over and Out ;) ;) ;)

This is not a logical arguement Hornblower. You are forgetting that even 100 years ago, turtle and dugong were hunted by dugout canoe and spear etc. Now they use outboard powered boats which are much quicker and have a longer range. Not sure whether they are allowed to use guns, bows or whatever now. Point is, hunting techniques are now far more efficient.

I saw some figures on here a while back estimating the indigenous turtle and dugong harvest annually. Hell of alot more than what was estimated to be due to boat strikes.

Jeremy

[fishingjew]

Craig Bohm is the AMCS conservation member on the management advisory committee of the commercial Gillnet Hook and Trap Fishery, QLD Fishing Industry Development Council and Fisheries Reef Advisory Committee for the Great Barrier Reef. Craig has also worked extensively on the development of Australia's Oceans Policy, implementation of the Strategic Fisheries

ISN,T IT GOOD TO KNOW THAT WE HAVE THESE INTELLIGIBLE PEOPLE SITTING ON ADVISORY COMMITTEES WITH OUR INTERESTS AT HEART

Might add Craig was a Zookeeper who came to AMCS from the Marine and Coastal Community Network, where he worked as the NSW Coordinator for over 7 years.

You would think sitting on these Committees they would be well aware of the problems prawn #fisheries of northern Australia are facing to put such a ridiculous sum of $250 000 for prawn research. There was a landline report on the weekend about this Future of prawn fishing in doubt. They went on to talk about prawn farming and how they could not compete against farm prawns - overseas farm prawns especially with cheap labour they just can't produce them cheap enough to compete against this opposition. and also the red tape they have to go through to start a farm .Those that did wish they hadn,t .

Quote off the site

The reality is that it's not gonna be the sustainability of the prawn stock, it's gonna be the sustainability of the fishermen to go and catch it because, you know, eventually it's going to get to the stage where they're just too expensive to do it, so it won't be viable.



The situation is viewed with so much concern that the Federal Government has stepped in and announced a major restructure of prawn fishing from the Kimberley across to Cape York.


link

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1741661.htm

[lefty_green]

This is my favorite part:


establish a network of Dugong Protected Areas in the northern Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) through netting closures and expand and strengthen the Dugong Protected Area network in the southern GBRWHA. #

Does that mean they want to fence the dugong in???Is that the worlds dumbest idea or what!! #Of course if you really think about it the places they will want to fence off will be all the go slow areas plus a "corridor" for the dugong to travel from place to place... no need for no-go zones or no take zones or green zones or any zones the whole -place would be "netted" off. :-[

Someone please tell me that this isnt what they are talking about here!! :-/

Adam


I think they mean closing areas to netting?

[lefty_green]

This is my favorite part:


establish a network of Dugong Protected Areas in the northern Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) through netting closures and expand and strengthen the Dugong Protected Area network in the southern GBRWHA. #

Does that mean they want to fence the dugong in???Is that the worlds dumbest idea or what!! #Of course if you really think about it the places they will want to fence off will be all the go slow areas plus a "corridor" for the dugong to travel from place to place... no need for no-go zones or no take zones or green zones or any zones the whole -place would be "netted" off. :-[

Someone please tell me that this isnt what they are talking about here!! :-/

Adam


I think they mean closing areas to netting? Not putting up nets to keep the dugongs in

[Adamy]

Ok... that seems to make sense - I suppose... netting enclosures are different to netting closures - but what reported evidence do we have that dugong are getting caught in nets?? What are the stats for mortality due to netting? If we lose a couple of dugong per year due to nets - then its sad - but the trade off for netting closures is no local fresh seafood - more basa and crap from overseas.

Nothing surprises me about the greens - IF they did propose that we fence off the bay - then that wouldnt surprise me either....They want the place to be like a zoo - look but dont touch. They are totally irrational as far as I'm concerned... and so I agree with all the comments made by Hornblower, Jew, GES etc.

[lefty_green]

What are the stats for mortality due to netting? #If we lose a couple of dugong per year due to nets - then its sad - but the trade off for netting closures is no local fresh seafood - more basa and crap from overseas.

Interesting. A rec fisher that doesn't want to see the end of commercial netting in Australia or Moreton Bay? I am amazed that when there is talk of spatial closures, rec fishers jump into bed with commercial fishers to provide a very vocal objection. However, rec fishers are quick to blame commercial fishers for the decline in fishing throughout Queensland and especially Moreton Bay.

[seatime]

Not too many netters in the bay would use mesh sizes big enough to snare dugong.
If there was one caught alive, the first thing they'd do is lift the line and let it out, pretty hard to retrieve a net with a dugong in it.
Sounds like another far fetched claim from AMCS.

Incidently, I saw a small pod? today, 3 adults and 1 calf in Tingalpa Ck off Mooroondu Pt. They looked very content and were swimming into the creek on an ebbing tide?

regards
Steve.

[jim_farrell]

Lefty, in the last month you have not produced or said anything that stands up. Everything you say is heresay, not true or spun. Even the reports you produce state they are based on estimates and guesswork.
You just spun adams comment that a point of view has changed in regards to rec Vs pro. Unless you can quote adam as saying that pro's are responsable the decline of fish stock, he hasn't changed his point of view but believes both are sustainable if properly managed. Some people say pro's are to blame, some say rec's and some say there are no one is to blame because there is no evidence that there is a problem.

At the end of the day, until figures can be produced to show that we take more than is naturally reproduced, your argument will never hold water. You cannot tell me the population of any fish in QLD, can you? Therefore you cannot tell me what percentage gets harvested. For all you know, every rec in qld could double his catch per annum and still not effect the sustainability of the fishery.
Now before you spin that, I didn't say we could double it without it having an effect, just that you don't know if we are doubling .05% of the fishery or 10% or bla bla bla.

I will complement you on you not getting personal throughout this debate.

Jim

[seatime]

I will complement you on you not getting personal throughout this debate.

Jim

flick, #have you read lefty's personal remarks on the 'science behind the proposed closures' thread.

regards

[jim_farrell]

Sorry steve, I had a weak moment.
I don't know why he keeps getting up off the floor.

[Hornblower]

This is not a logical arguement Hornblower. You are forgetting that even 100 years ago, turtle and dugong were hunted by dugout canoe and spear etc. Now they use outboard powered boats which are much quicker and have a longer range. Not sure whether they are allowed to use guns, bows or whatever now. Point is, hunting techniques are now far more efficient.

I saw some figures on here a while back estimating the indigenous turtle and dugong harvest annually. Hell of alot more than what was estimated to be due to boat strikes.

Jeremy



You're right of course Jeremy, about the harvest being more then the boat strikes, but the point is, there are far fewer of our indigenous brethren hunting now then there were before white man came here. Far less of them eating the traditional way as well. This equals, less being harvested. The newer methods of carrying on the hunt, with the assistance of modern boats etc really doesn't have that much more of an impact whehn you take into consideration the fact that there are far less of the idigenous people living the traditional way of life. The other point is that they can still only eat sooo much. It is now ilegal to trade in turtle shell etc in this state.

The point is though, that the bloody greenies aren't happy until they have stuffed up everyones way of life. It they it the way it is, dugong hunting will probably die a natural death in the next thirty years anyway. Why try to hurry it, it is the same in my book as our farming cattle for meat production.

Cheers ;) ;) ;) ;)

[PinHead]

What are the stats for mortality due to netting? #If we lose a couple of dugong per year due to nets - then its sad - but the trade off for netting closures is no local fresh seafood - more basa and crap from overseas.

Interesting. A rec fisher that doesn't want to see the end of commercial netting in Australia or Moreton Bay? I am amazed that when there is talk of spatial closures, rec fishers jump into bed with commercial fishers to provide a very vocal objection. However, rec fishers are quick to blame commercial fishers for the decline in fishing throughout Queensland and especially Moreton Bay.

Lefty...who says the fishing has declined in the Bay..most people I know seem to think it has improved..I know the areas where I fish, we have had the best winter fishing for a while..and that is without rainfall to flush out the estauries and the water not being as cold as we usually want it.

[lefty_green]

Everything you say is heresay, not true or spun

Is that right flick? I dont think you have produced anything, not a shred of evidence to back you up. I have posted a document, the best evidence available, but you shot it down. Now you produce something that refutes my claims and i will shut up. Simple. You know the saying - people in glass houses....

I don't know why he keeps getting up off the floor Just pig-headed I suppose

As for the comment about fish stocks - well you are joking aren't you? You're saying the fishing is as good now as it was 50 years ago? 20 years ago?

[Luvinit]

Lefty-Green,
I'm not old enough to comment on the 50 years ago quip, but unless you are then you'd better keep your mouth shut.
As for 20 years ago, I would put my hand up to say YES. Certainly in the case of snapper, I have had much more success now than 20 years ago.
Whether that's due to:
a. the improved water quality (pollution is much reduced in comparison to the virtually unregulated dumping that occurred 20-30 years ago)
b. the cessation of coral dredging in the bay, or
c. the increased size limit / decreased bag limit, or most likely
d. all the above.

I havent noticed any decline in the winter whiting stocks, I can go out and catch a feed of them just about any time I want (in Winter of course).
I have noticed a bit of a decline in Bream (and I would like to hear if anyone else feels the same) and I suspect that a change in size limit would do the Bream stocks some good.
Now before you go twisting that around LG, I havent said that they are overfished, there may be a multitude of causes, in fact it may just be that I'm out of luck with the Bream and that stocks are fine (I WOULD like to see some research done on that) all I have said is that Bream stocks would benefit from a size limit increase. That is MANAGE the issue.

The key point is that MANAGEMENT strategies CAN EASILY ensure biodivesity and sustainability with out closing us Queenslanders out of OUR OWN bay.

Research into better ways to minimise impact (for example BUT NOT LIMITED TO reducing by-catch from netters) should continue. Further reduction in pollution will be welcomed. Improved water supply in SE Qld which does not include damming and sucking every last drop out of every river we can find will be welcome. the reduced emmision standards for OB motors are welcome.
There are a host of things that can and should be done to protect our environment, and I and many rec fishers support those things.

Closures are NOT the answer.

Closures are a cop out for those who are not prepared to put the effort in to manage the issue.

Closures are a Luddite solution for a vocal minority of idealogues who are obviously prepared to twist and spin any emotive issue (eg dugongs) and prepared to defame anyone who doesnt agree with them in order to to con the good-hearted majority who are happy to ascede to what appears at first to be a morale cause but don't have the time or inclination to scratch the surface of the veneer of argument put.

I am proud to say that I care for the bay, I have an environmental conscience and I take active steps to minimise my impact and even to clean up after others who are not as considerate as I. I have no qualms in saying that those who abuse the size/bag limits should receive the appropriate punishments. I agree with preservation and conservation but not as an ends rather as a means to ensure we can CONTINUE to enjoy the environment.

It is for those reasons that I whole-heartedly oppose the Closures.

There may be others on this site who have slight variations on my opinions, but I would venture to say that the vast majority of people on this site agree with me, when I say we want to care for and preserve our environment so that we can interact and enjoy it, not so it can be locked away.

So the end result is Lefty-Green, you can push your barrow full of emotive and misleading BS some where else.

[jim_farrell]

the best evidence available
[/quote]

Conservationists want to make the QLD coastline a marine park from border to border, with a minimum of 20-30% no take zones.

I'm sorry, but your best evidence is rubbish, as I said, it is based on estimates and guesswork. It even states that in the report.
You ask me what data I have produced. What data do I need to produce. I am not proposing changes. You are, therefor you need evidence to back up the proposals.
If i produced evidence that I caught more fish this week as against the corresponding week 10 years ago, does that mean that there are more fish now, or that I am now taking to much. That is as solid as anything you have produced. It is all in how the reader interprets it.

The studies should not be about whether we need closures, It should be how many fish are there, and are we taking to many. There is no study that says we take an unhealthy percentage.
Finally, another piece of your spin,

"As for the comment about fish stocks - well you are joking aren't you? You're saying the fishing is as good now as it was 50 years ago? 20 years ago? "

Fish stocks and how good fishing was fifty years ago are separate issues.
Can you tell me how many bream there were in QLD waters fifty years ago? Can you tell me how many rec fishos took fifty years ago? The same for today, How many bream in QLD today, and how many do we take.
You cannot answer any of those questions, so neither can you tell me the difference in populations across fifty years.

Here is a job for you.
Go to your local tackle store and do a survey of all rec fishoes that go in there. Ask them how long they have been fishing for, and how often they fish. Then ask all that were fishing twenty years ago or more how much catch and release they practiced back then, and how much they practice now.

20-30% closures of the entire QLD coastline with not one study or shred of evidence that can state that we take an unhealthy amount for the fishery to be sustainable.

As i've said before, show me an accurate report that tells me what percentage we harvest. Only then should decisions be made on what action to take.
Jim

[jim_farrell]

Closures are a Luddite solution for a vocal minority of idealogues who are obviously prepared to twist and spin any emotive issue (eg dugongs) and prepared to defame anyone who doesnt agree with them in order to to con the good-hearted majority who are happy to ascede to what appears at first to be a morale cause but don't have the time or inclination to scratch the surface of the veneer of argument put.

[/quote]

Luvinit, very well said. ;)

[lefty_green]

I am not proposing changes. You are

Closures are NOT the answer


I DO NOT advocate closures!! Read it again for goodness sake. However, I would if I have sufficient scientific proof - eg spawning temporal closures on the reef, spatial closures for spawning tailor. Are these ok with you blokes or would you prefer to see these gone as well?

I'm not old enough to comment on the 50 years ago quip, but unless you are then you'd better keep your mouth shut.
As for 20 years ago, I would put my hand up to say YES. Certainly in the case of snapper, I have had much more success now than 20 years ago.
Whether that's due to:
a. the improved water quality (pollution is much reduced in comparison to the virtually unregulated dumping that occurred 20-30 years ago)
b. the cessation of coral dredging in the bay, or
c. the increased size limit / decreased bag limit, or most likely
d. all the above.

So you say that fish stocks are the same or better than 20 years ago? Why do we need to remove trawlers and netters from the Bay?

Closures are a Luddite solution for a vocal minority of idealogues

They want change, you dont. Doesn't that make you the luddite?

[seatime]

the best evidence available


Conservationists want to make the QLD coastline a marine park from border to border, with a minimum of 20-30% no take zones.

I'm sorry, but your best evidence is rubbish, as I said, it is based on estimates and guesswork. It even states that in the report.
You ask me what data I have produced. What data do I need to produce. I am not proposing changes. You are, therefor you need evidence to back up the proposals.
If i produced evidence that I caught more fish this week as against the corresponding week 10 years ago, does that mean that there are more fish now, or that I am now taking to much. #That is as solid as anything you have produced. It is all in how the reader interprets it.

The studies should not be about whether we need closures, It should be how many fish are there, and are we taking to many. There is no study that says we take an unhealthy percentage.
Finally, another piece of your spin,

"As for the comment about fish stocks - well you are joking aren't you? You're saying the fishing is as good now as it was 50 years ago? 20 years ago? "

Fish stocks and how good fishing was fifty years ago are separate issues.
Can you tell me how many bream there were in QLD waters fifty years ago? Can you tell me how many rec fishos took fifty years ago? The same for today, How many bream in QLD today, and how many do we take.
You cannot answer any of those questions, so neither can you tell me the difference in populations across fifty years.

Here is a job for you.
Go to your local tackle store and do a survey of all rec fishoes that go in there. Ask them how long they have been fishing for, and how often they fish. Then ask all that were fishing twenty years ago or more how much catch and release they practiced back then, and how much they practice now.

20-30% closures of the entire QLD coastline with not one study or shred of evidence that can state that we take an unhealthy amount for the fishery to be sustainable.

As i've said before, show me an accurate report that tells me what percentage we harvest. Only then should decisions be made on what action to take.
Jim[/quote]

A case in point:

Went out yesterday at 1100, I was determined to catch something on a SP, never caught anything on them the couple of times I've tried.
Within 30 mins I'd caught 2 flatties, 1 legal, 1 not, both released, dropped 1 and even had 1 chasing a Jackal fish thingy. 4 dugong cruised right past me, and if it wasn't for the snot weed I'd have stayed. I mucked around for another 1 hr at a couple of other spots, did no good and came home.

Now, I've fished in the bay on and off since 1966, at 3 yrs old.
And I reckon that effort compares pretty favorably with years ago.

Also done well with snapper each time out (on bait) Nth of Pt Lookout.
Winter whiting are as good as I can remember, crabs are good, macks back after netting stopped. Some species need attention, that's where the detailed studies are needed, but don't exist.

Not that much has changed, 20,30,40 yrs ago, if you put in the effort, you were rewarded, same today. There was plenty of fishers who couldn't catch fish 30 yrs ago :) There's so much boat traffic on weekends it's a wonder anyone catches fish.

regards
Steve.

[lefty_green]

Not that much has changed, 20,30,40 yrs ago, if you put in the effort, you were rewarded, same today.

Ok steve i'll tell you what. We'll go fishing tomorrow - lets say we go to Mud Island to catch a snapper.

But when we get there we'll leave the 4.55m Quintrex Hornett sitting on it's Redco trailer, with its 90hp 4-stroke electric start, electric trim and tilt Yamaha unstarted. Instead we'll take my grandfathers 16ft wooden clinker row boat, made from wood. We'll leave the $1000 GPS and $1000 colour sounder in the car as well (but we'll have to take pop so he can show us the landmarks). We'll also leave the Loomis spin rods matched with the shimano stella's filled with the 4lb fireline. Same goes for the flourocarbon leader (whats that pop asks). We'll also leave the scented Squidgies at home, with their chemically sharpened, fine-guage hooks. Instead we'll take pop's tackle sack containing his home-made hand spools (turned on his lathe) filled with cat-gut fishing line (equivalent to about 80lb mono). But pop was fairly progressive so there might be a few Mustad hooks that he imported himself if we're lucky??

We better get there early because we'll have to go and dig some worms ourselves or cast net some hardy heads.

I wonder how many snapper we'd catch with that sort of gear?

That sort of gear was used to catch cricket score cathes of bream and the like 50 years ago.

It is ridiculous to say that fish stocks are better than they were. You need to standardise the effort. I have done so in the above example. Fisheries managers call this effort creep. Although the number of fishers may not change (and I think we'll all have to agree that it has increased substantially) the methods they use to catch the fish have made that effort more efficient.

Not that much has changed You really believe this?

[jim_farrell]

What you have just said is the exact reason why you cop flack lefty.
My old mans 18 ft cruise craft has not changed fishing wise since he bought it in 1978. That makes it 28 years old. No sounder. No gps. No braid no flurocarbon. Handlines with 50lb mono. All marks are from compass bearings and experience. His catch rate is as good this winter as it was 30 years ago. That is a fact and not something I have made up for the fun of it. The only thing that has changed, is he throws a lot back.

My boat has gps, sounder blah blah blah and he would still out fish me. Partly because I fish lighter gear and get bricked, and partly because he relies on his wisdom and not electronics.

So once again, how can you prove fisheries aren't as plentiful as 30-50 years ago, and prove recs take more now than once did. I know I catch about the same on average but release a hell of a lot more.

As far as cricket scores go, some blokes still chase them. Try a search in estuary under long weekend 19th sept. That bloke copped an absolute hiding from 90% of ausfishers. Most of us could go and keep a truck load of bream, but don't. PM nugget about how many bream were seen by divers in the seaway a month ago. He was talking schools by the hundreds.

Proof that recs take a damaging percentage of any fishery. I am still waiting for your evidence.

Oh and back to the topic 20-30% no take zones along the whole coastline. You are either for or against it. Which is it?
Jim

[seatime]

Not that much has changed, 20,30,40 yrs ago, if you put in the effort, you were rewarded, same today.

Ok steve i'll tell you what. We'll go fishing tomorrow - lets say we go to Mud Island to catch a snapper.

But when we get there we'll leave the 4.55m Quintrex Hornett sitting on it's Redco trailer, with its 90hp 4-stroke electric start, electric trim and tilt Yamaha unstarted. Instead we'll take my grandfathers 16ft wooden clinker row boat, made from wood. We'll leave the $1000 GPS and $1000 colour sounder in the car as well (but we'll have to take pop so he can show us the landmarks). We'll also leave the Loomis spin rods matched with the shimano stella's filled with the 4lb fireline. Same goes for the flourocarbon leader (whats that pop asks). We'll also leave the scented Squidgies at home, with their chemically sharpened, fine-guage hooks. Instead we'll take pop's tackle sack containing his home-made hand spools (turned on his lathe) filled with cat-gut fishing line (equivalent to about 80lb mono). But pop was fairly progressive so there might be a few Mustad hooks that he imported himself if we're lucky??

We better get there early because we'll have to go and dig some worms ourselves or cast net some hardy heads.

I wonder how many snapper we'd catch with that sort of gear?

Don't know, I've never used worms or hardyheads to catch snapper, I'm more of a squid and pilchard guy.

That sort of gear was used to catch cricket score cathes of bream and the like 50 years ago.

It is ridiculous to say that fish stocks are better than they were. You need to standardise the effort. I have done so in the above example. Fisheries managers call this effort creep. Although the number of fishers may not change (and I think we'll all have to agree that it has increased substantially) the methods they use to catch the fish have made that effort more efficient.

It is ridiculous to say that fish stocks are better than they were, that's why I didn't say it
Not that much has changed You really believe this?
yes I do, my ability to catch a fish when I plan to hasn't changed much. But that's only from my experiences, which are fairly broad.
regards
Steve.

[lefty_green]

So once again, how can you prove fisheries aren't as plentiful as 30-50 years ago, and prove recs take more now than once did. I know I catch about the same on average but release #a hell of a lot more.


As you know I cannot produce numbers to prove or disprove anything. However, what I can do is say that the recreational bag limit for snapper has gone from 30 to 5 and most probably will go to 2, while the size limit has increased. That tells me that there's a little problem there. Further, the bag limit for tailor has gone from "catch what you want, sugar bags full" to 20. The total catch of both of these species is significantly influenced by rec fishers. Is that evidence enough - probably not for you Jim, but thats the best I can do.


Oh and back to the topic 20-30% no take zones along the whole coastline. You are either for or against it. Which is it?

As I have said on numerous occassions I am for closures if they are to protect spawning areas like the temporal reef closures or the spatial closure on Fraser for tailor. I am totally against closures that exclude fishers (commercial or rec) for no good reason.

[jim_farrell]

As you know I cannot produce numbers to prove or disprove anything. However, what I can do is say that the recreational bag limit for snapper has gone from 30 to 5 and most probably will go to 2, while the size limit has increased. That tells me that there's a little problem there. .

Lefty, no it doesn't mean there is a little problem there. It means that fisheries decided that those numbers were probably unnecessary and may in the future effect sustainability.
Most recs don't have an issue with fisheries management of bag limits and sizes. Some are good, some are questionable, but most are workable.
Problems arise when extreme conservationists, greenies and activists get involved in something they know very little about. They have a meeting, decide on an agenda, act on it, then once they achieve their goal, someone else is left to deal with an unbalance that they created. They end up doing more damage than good. I hate to get off topic, but the snowy mountains is a perfect example of this. Even the rangers agree the greenies have screwed it up. To drop snapper to 2 on baseless grounds will only put unnecessary pressure on other fisheries. Do you think that I will put $100 of fuel in my boat and stop fishing once I have caught 2 snapper. This is a perfect example of poor management.

The latest agenda is 20-30% closures of the whole Qld coastline. No research, no studies, no thought as to possible outcomes, just a group of people who think they, ...... hell, I don't know what they think. They get off on forcing change on people they perceive as being ungreen, possibly a power trip. This is a very dangerous way of managing anything.

I am unclear on where you stand here lefty.
1. What is your view on the GNS closures.
2. Do you think there are grounds for closures in the bay, if so, to what areas and effecting what species.
3. Do you agree with the closures in the GSS and on what grounds.
4. Do you agree with the GBRMP closures, and on what grounds.
5. What are your views on 20-30 % closures of the entire QLD coastline.
6. What species of fish in QLD do you believe is under threat or in decline due to rec fishing.

Finally, to answer your question, no it is not evidence that a fishery was under threat. It is evidence that somebody thought those numbers were unsustainable. Until someone says there are X number of tailor and we take X number, there is no evidence, only guess work, and that is based on personal opinions not definite science.

Jim

[Hornblower]

Dear Lefty Green,

Because the bag limit on snapper has gone doesn't necessarily mean there is a problem, that is an assumption you are making to back up your argument. I would suggest that it is more likely a management strategy to ensure that there isn't a problem in the future with all the southerners coming up here for the way of life and increase in the number of boats etc in our part of the world.
I'm not talking snapper here, but I would say my fishing success rate has possibly risen a little since I started out 30 years ago.

Yes, I have a depth sounder - which I use for navigating my way through sandbanks etc, and I still mainly rely on my eyesight for the best fishing spots; and
Yes I do have a GPS, but I use this for the same reason as the sounder.

Now I am not an outside fishermen, only the every day garden variety estuary type. But I can tell you for sure what will have a ditremental impact on our fishing stocks etc, and that is those illegal netters who take everything out of the system, not us responsible recreational anglers and not even the pros, but those stinky little swine who net illegally.

Now that being said, closures are not going to effect them in any way whatsoever except possible to make it easier for them to get away with their nefarious activities because there will be less of us out there reporting their behaviour. If they are doing something illegal for which they are liable to lose their boat etc now, do you think that further closures will really stop from doing it in the future.

I don't mean this as a personal attack, only to try to open your thoughts up to the fact that there COULD be more to all this.

Cheers ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

[lefty_green]

Lefty, no it doesn't mean there is a little problem there. It means that fisheries decided that those numbers were probably unnecessary and may in the future effect sustainability.

What effects the sustainability - overfishing from rec fishers?

Most recs don't have an issue with fisheries management of bag limits and sizes. Some are good, some are questionable, but most are workable.
Problems arise when extreme conservationists, greenies and activists get involved in something they know very little about. They have a meeting, decide on an agenda, act on it, then once they achieve their goal, someone else is left to deal with an unbalance that they created. They end up doing more damage than good.

Bag limits are not set by greenies. In fact, on most MACs in Qld the green contingent is a very small part.

I hate to get off topic, but the snowy mountains is a perfect example of this. Even the rangers agree the greenies have screwed it up. To drop snapper to 2 on baseless grounds will only put unnecessary pressure on other fisheries. Do you think that I will put $100 of fuel in my boat and stop fishing once I have caught 2 snapper. This is a perfect example of poor management.

Why is it poor management? Why is it baseless? How do you know? Research has shown that to increase the population of snapper, bag limits may go to 2. Who are you to say that the research is baseless?? How dare you say such crap - do you even know what research has been done? Are you aware of the quality of stock assessment that goes on in QDPI&F? Do you know any of the researchers? Baseless? You talk about baseless - you're whole argument is BASELESS.

The latest agenda is 20-30% closures of the whole Qld coastline. No research, no studies, no thought as to possible outcomes, just a group of people who think they, ...... hell, I don't know what they think. They get off on forcing change on people they perceive as being ungreen, possibly a power trip. This is a very dangerous way of managing anything.

That is just the biggest load of rubbish. Any revisions to legislation these days go to a RIS for public comment. Changes are made according to the responses. The fact is if more greens respond then they will get their way. Simple. Rec fishers are the vast minority, so unless you want the green view upheld get off your A*se and respond to RIS's.

I am unclear on where you stand here lefty.

I'm not sure how I can make it clearer after I say As I have said on numerous occassions I am for closures if they are to protect spawning areas like the temporal reef closures or the spatial closure on Fraser for tailor. I am totally against closures that exclude fishers (commercial or rec) for no good reason.

Finally, to answer your question, no it is not evidence that a fishery was under threat. It is evidence that somebody thought those numbers were unsustainable. Until someone says there are X number of tailor and we take X number, there is no evidence, only guess work, and that is based on personal opinions not definite science.

Crap - its based on the best data available. Which is more than you have to disprove that rec fishers aren't contributing to the decline of fish stocks. You have not provided one shred of evidence to back you up yet I'm required to. I dont care what you say - the fact that bag limits have been tightened and MLS have been incresed means that rec fishing contributesd SIGNIFICANTLY to declines in fish numbers!! Read it again.

[jim_farrell]

Sorry lefty, its been fun but it appears you will never understand.
All the best.
Jim

[redspeckle]

The Queensland Conservation should ask Qld Government about the proposed filling in of Jackson Creek for a another runway for the Brisbane Airport
Here we have a creek that is an important part of a building block for Moreton bay for fish and other wildlife /plants to breed to keep the part of the bay healthy and once its gone never going to get it back
Here was the Australian Marine conversation society campaigns was asking closures 30 to 50 percent of Moreton Bay (now taken off their web site) pick on Rec Fisherman instead of big business
I haven't seen them protesting about this issue in the media or on the website it very slack by by them

Mitch

[Derek_Bullock]

The Queensland Conservation should ask Qld Government about the proposed filling in of Jackson Creek for a another runway for the Brisbane Airport #
Here we have a creek that is an important part of a building block for Moreton bay for fish and other wildlife /plants to breed to keep the part of the bay healthy and once its gone never going to get it back
Here was the Australian Marine conversation society campaigns was asking closures 30 to 50 percent of Moreton Bay (now taken off their web site) pick on Rec Fisherman instead of big business
I haven't seen them protesting about this issue in the media or on the website it very slack by by them

Mitch


Hi Mitch

The AMCS never took that off their website. #Don't be fooled by the misinformation going around that the AMCS have backed away from this. #They haven't and never will. #Their plan is to continue to push for this.

They remodelled their website but never removed it. #Check it out.

http://www.amcs.org.au/default2.asp?active_page_id=303


Derek

[Adamy]

Their plan is to continue to pish for this
Umm... couple of things... is "pish" a word?? ;D :P :P just kidding..

and

I think the "this issue" Mitch was originally referring to is the environmental impact of the extra runway. Meanwhile the AMCS protesting fishers instead of real environmental issues such as the long term environmental damage to be done by filling in of Jackson Creek.

I think he was saying that it is poor form for them to be targeting us and not real issues and I agree with him - shows that the AMCS dont really care about the environment and are only interested in Vegan politics.

Adam