View Full Version : Fishing Mags and Groper!

02-02-2005, 04:31 AM
What's the go ??? ???
Another popular fishing mag with pics of queensland groper and no explanation as to the fact that they are a protected species, and can not be targeted!
This one in fact makes out that 2004 was the year of the Queensland groper!
To those fishermen that are not up on fishing regs, this may as well be an invite to catch them in unrestricted numbers!!!
there are heaps of fishermen out there who dont need to be led astray.
Have some more respect for our protected species >:( >:( >:(

>:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

02-02-2005, 05:51 AM
I think it comes down to where the angler has to be aware of the size and regulations otherwise they shouldn't be on the water.
And that info has to come from the source (ie DPI).
Fair enough the mags could publish size limits and bag limits but how boring would that be in every article - seriously.
Take for example this months Bush N Beach. How repetitive would it be if each spotted mackerel article had the same info regarding size and bag limit requirements?
Anyway, maybe make a suggestion to the editor of the magazine you're referring to and they could possibly pass the info onto their writers.
The mags usually act on reader feedback, if it's warranted.

02-02-2005, 06:13 AM
Your missing the point Fisheasy
Groper are a protected species, and as such should not be seen to be a target for fishermen.
These magazines (two this year) have a responsibility to show that fishermen are doing the right thing, not feed green groups and government groups with the image that we don't give a damm about protected species and fish for them anyway.
Most inexperienced fisho's look up to these mags as a reliable source of information, and see no need to check the validity of the information they contain.
The buck stops at the editors desk.

# # # # # #Regards, Tony

02-02-2005, 07:43 AM
The buck stops at the editors desk.

Here, here...

02-02-2005, 08:16 AM
Perhaps these magazines need to publish a page of fish limits and sizes and those species that are protected in each issue. On the back page or something every issue, to educate those who aren't aware of the regulations. But I'm on your side Tony, some fisho's, especially those who don't fish that often, if they pick up one of these magazines and see a groper or other protected species, what's to stop them going out and targetting them and thinking its ok?


02-02-2005, 08:57 AM
so the big question is what is the dpi going to do about it

targeted or not i was under the understanding that if you had caught a protected speicis you was to cut it off as soon as possabile
NOT hevey it out of water for some faimly or even worst mag pics!
laws the law and even if they did run the artical shouldn't thay of put a disclamer on it saying that non of the fish were targeted and were a proected threatend speices
i agree tony and think the angler and mag should be help acountable >:(

02-02-2005, 12:24 PM
Prehaps the magazine should not publishphotos of restricted fish being caught. Besides why anyone would want to catch a groper when there is so much better on offer.

02-02-2005, 12:35 PM
Yeah, accidental captures of protected species can not be helped but they should not be published with comments like "they were thefish of the year in 2004" or "he was stoked to get one" We have enough problems with the powers that be and the greenies without giving them more reasons to shut us down.

Regards, Tony

02-02-2005, 01:17 PM
With ya on this one tony, imagine if i was on the front cover of a mag holding up a big patato cod,dugeon,dolphin or turtle!!! even if i let it go after the shot, its not right.All are protected the same. Only question is- are groper protected in all states?...foxy

03-02-2005, 03:53 AM
Not sure about that Foxy
They are in Queensland where the mag is based though.

Regards, Tony

03-02-2005, 11:54 AM
Which Mag Tony.? ???

03-02-2005, 03:49 PM
I see a different persepetive. Having been a correspondent to a few publications, you take the opportunity to get a good pic to HELP get the info out there. Mags without pics is like a car without wheels, it dont work. If a quick pic is taken prior to release it can be used in a helpful way in an article. If articles were simply regugitated literature from various Fisheries Depts they would be quite boring. Sliding some relevant info into the story & having an acompanying pic to go with it works wonders.
I've been out with clients that have accidentally caught them & I quickly use the opportunity to tell them what the fish is & why its protected. They get the fuzzy warm effect & often remember the capture over many others.
Juvenile Qld Groper are a beautiful fish that look nothing like their parents. I recon putting pics of them in mags is a great way for ppl to be able to identify them if they ever do accidentally catch one.
I've taken pics of other totally protected pics & even sent the pics to DPI researchers.

Mary River Cod caught in the Brisbane River. (totally protected)

Qld Lungfish caught in Lake Wivenhoe.

None were intentionally targetted & all were released after carefull handling & a quick pic.



04-02-2005, 05:01 AM
Totally agree mate, the problem in my eyes is that they are not being used to educate anyone. They seem to be more trophy photos when you read the text that has gone up with them. Not even a slight hint that they are a protected species,by reading the article one would think they were a highly desirable target species. The one I refered to last month showed a groper on the cover and inside stated it was an estuary cod! and how now is the time to target them!!!

Not good enough in my book, Regards, Tony

04-02-2005, 05:53 AM
Thats right AJ. With so many laws and regulations its easy to forget some, and an article like that could make this particular regulation slip further back into your mind. Visitors and tourists could easily get the wrong idea as well, if an article failed to stress the importance of this protected specie.

04-02-2005, 06:00 AM
Oh, by the way, I have a soft spot for the QLD grouper. I found an extremely large one trapped in a tidal pool on a low tide at my local beach. It was just about dead when I got to it. Me and a passerbye tied a rope around it and dragged it across the sand to the deeper water (nice work out). We then held it between us and pushed it through the water, opening its gills with our hands and moving its tail from side to side, desperate to try and save its life. This went on for no less then an hour and when we were just about to give up we felt the tail give an almighty health kick. It finaly could swim without us supporting the big fish. The massive grouper actualy stayed with us for another half an hour swimming around us in waste deep water before heading out to sea. I swear it was almost trying to thank us.

04-02-2005, 06:15 AM
I totally agree Tony, the article said he "nailed a Juvenile Qld Groper " and is holding it up for a photo, no mention of any release. Most people who dont know the regulations probably thought he ate it, and maybe he did, who knows.
Can you imagine him holding up a baby dugong or dolphin for a photo and a caption saying he "nailed a dugong". I don't think so. :o
Not sure about fish, but I think the guy holding up that lungfish Fitzy would be technically breaking the law, I know you are not supposed to intefere with protected animals in any way ie. you can't feed em , scare em or pick them up for photos. Remember Steve Irwin got in trouble for getting too close to some penguins. (a lot of crap I reckon , but that is apparently the way the regulations are interpreted)!
A percentage of all caught and released fish die as a result of the experience and that percentage goes up if they are removed from the water and handled.
I think it would have been more tactful to take a photo of the fish in the water just prior to release, with some comments about them being totally protected, and they must be released immediately.. 8)

04-02-2005, 07:01 AM
Hi Tony,

I happen to know this magazine quite well and do agree that failing to correctly idenitify the front cover picture as a QLD Groper is unacceptable. But please accept that mistakes do happen and the editor Mr Booth has made a special note in his editorial in the Feb issue and clearly stating that the fish was a juvenile QLD groper and is a protected species. That actual fish was caught on charter trip with Dave Donald at Weipa. Dave's one of Australia's longest serving and most respected guides and is at the forefront of fish conservation. That fish went back to its home alive and well!

As you can understand we process hundreds of pictures and captions on a monthly basis and it is disappointing that one of the mistakes involved a protected species. However we do our best under the pressure of deadlines and have to face up to the mistakes, as we unfortunately don't have the ability to change it after printing. Hell, we would love to have a EDIT/MODIFY button that we can use on our magazines.

I might be able to convince the editor to do a little bit in a future issue on the QLD groper, highlighting their protected status and the best way to handle/release them if you happen to catch one.

Any further feedback is always welcome!



04-02-2005, 07:08 AM
Hey Mick, great story!! Are you sure he/she was trying to thank you, maybe it was a bit hungry after such an effort and was sussing you out for a nice easy feed :D ;D ;D ;D

04-02-2005, 07:12 AM
Fitzy's right. They are a good looking fish, and nothing like their big ugly grown up brothers. #;D

This one came off a snag while barra fishing.

Was a couple of year ago, but released anyway.

04-02-2005, 07:38 AM
Trent, I think that would be a fantastic idea if you could make it happen. Well written too!
Daintreeboy, I never thought of that. But, the guy who helped me was so stoned i could of thrown him to the grouper and made a quick get away. He kept sayin "woooooo, this is freaky stuff man. Oooohhhh man, this is like, a way big fish man, wooooooo, c'mon fish man, you can pull through man, c'mon fish man" etc etc.
Had me laughing. I was thinking about buying him a pack of twisties for helping out.

04-02-2005, 07:40 AM
The mag you are talking about was covered in an earlier post, I believe Nugget had a word to the editor and got the explanation as to the mistake on that one.
This post is in relation to another one.
Trent I think that would be a fantastic idea, to run an article on the poor old groper and let as many people as possible know what they look like and the rules on keeping or targetting protected species. Perhaps also someone who is up on thier fish species and the regulations that govern them, could do a check through the mags before they are printed.
People look up to these magazines and generally don't doubt any of the content. By the way the mag you refer to is a very informative one and normally I would give it top marks for its content.

Regards, Tony

04-02-2005, 04:27 PM
Not sure about fish, but I think the guy holding up that lungfish Fitzy would be technically breaking the law, I know you are not supposed to intefere with protected animals in any way ie. you can't feed em , scare em or pick them up for photos.
The guy holding the lungfish is me. Not that I need to explain myself, however I will. It took a lure meant for a bass. I think I got the bigger shock when I got the thing next to the boat! :o
The lure had both trebles woven into its mouth. Had to be pulled into the boat for extraction. Another 3 seconds out of the water for a pic did no extra harm & I cant see how any laws were broken. I even emailed the pic to one of the DPI guys who researched this fish. You need to remember that I could have thrown the lungfish up the bank & it would have lived for another couple of days; as the name suggests,,, they breathe air.

We need to tread real careful on this issue. If we are going to claim the act of holding up a fish for a pic is damaging it, then a vast majority of fish in mags & at Bream, Bass & any other C&R style comps are then being damaged as well.

The status of the fish (protected, common, endangered etc)will mean nothing to the animal libbers.