View Full Version : Bream Bag Limits

25-12-2004, 12:18 PM

Derek Bullock
25-12-2004, 01:07 PM
Do you know that this is the sort of thing that Government beaurocrats do. Throw a furfy out like this as a rumour. Next thing you know it's law. Sure you dont work for DPI Smithy. ;D ;D ;D ;D


25-12-2004, 03:37 PM
The first 2 options are ridiculous..what do you do after the first 20 minutes fishing in winter...pack up and go home ?

25-12-2004, 03:51 PM
I find bream a bit soft and usually a bit small, I much rather a feed of flathead. I personally wouldn't take a bream home to eat that was under 25cm. Maybe an increase in the legal size instead of or in conjunction with a bag limit is the go.

25-12-2004, 06:12 PM
Merry christmas Derek,pinhead and jeremy...... ;) :D ;D....................Smithy...

25-12-2004, 06:23 PM
Smithy, they are vermin out of control, spiky bastards that are passable as survival food and thats about it, im not into them at all. use them for crab bait so a limit around 10 would be enough.

25-12-2004, 06:39 PM
Merry christmas mac,....... ;D ;D ;D ;)

26-12-2004, 12:40 AM
Seems like there will and should be a size increase. #The following is made up from the facts I have been able to put together. #I think its 90% + accurate

Qld has the smallest Bream minimum in Australia. #(Yes I know other States have Black Bream) # It seems this 23 size limit was based on faulty data. # #

You see, they usually make minimum sizes as the size at which they have at least had a chance to breed once. #(Which means we should never catch Jack - all those in rivers are juvenile? but lets leave that for another day)

So they thought Bream breeding took place at 21cm # - so 23 was set as the size. #

It turns out that the 21cm was true for males not females. #So the 23cm limit needs to be increased. #

Until they can get the rules changed # I am suggesting an Ausfish Voluntary Code of Ethics and we all make Bream minimum say 25cm #or another way is to say 23cm but now to the fork of the tail. # Not the tips.

What do you think?


26-12-2004, 03:13 AM
23cm is tiny. There's bigger and tastier fish to catch.
My suggestion is 25cm+ if you are desperate or really hungry
my thoughts....
jay. ::)

26-12-2004, 12:54 PM
Smithy, they are vermin out of control, spiky bastards that are passable as survival food and thats about it, im not into them at all. use them for crab bait so a limit around 10 would be enough.

Feel the love....Caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan you feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel the looooooooooooove tooooooooniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight ;D

26-12-2004, 04:37 PM
Leave it as it is. It certainly seems that they are not overfished by any means. A token fish that allows some to get a chance at pulling in good numbers if they want and gives the kids some fun. How many do you know that will actually take more that 10 each. Too much bloody cleaning. And leave the size as although bony bastards, the only ones I'll eat are 23-27cm as the meat is a lot sweeter and at 23cm the are a good raw eating fish if caught in clean waters.
Rob, I also feed them to the crabs but recently kept a couple grinners and threw them into the pot along with a bream or mullet. I don't know if it's common knowledge that I just relised but grinners are bloody great pot baits compared. Sorry Verminator, hope this doesn't encourage the hunting of your game ;D ;D.

26-12-2004, 04:48 PM
My old father in law would catch a 23 cm bream and take it home for dinner

His average take home home 1 fish

More restriction would take people like him out of the picture.

Why not make then all above 30cm, less than 32cm, must cast left handed and can only use bait caught by trawlers. That makes about much sense as does further restrictions.

Improve water quality and habitate and you will get more fish, now that makes sense


27-12-2004, 03:09 AM
Bag limit of 10
Minimum size 28cm. They are an extremely important recreational fish. For many once a year fisho's or family fishing outings, this is the bread and butter fish. There is a lot of people out there that would catch nothing if bream ever became less common.
Personaly, I Would need to be pretty hungry to bother with a .............Bream!!!

Blaaahhhhhh!!!!!! Regards, Tony ;)

27-12-2004, 06:15 AM
I heard of a story of a family of refugees who catch these bream by the hundreds and by using a mincer and other ingredients make fairly edible fish cakes which they supply to all their rellys and customers and make a tidy income from them.
I'll bet THEY don't want to see any changes to the possession or size limits.

27-12-2004, 10:28 AM
I don't think changes would matter in that case, they break laws by selling them, no reason why a little technicality like size and bag limits would get in the way!!!!!!

Regards, Tony ;D ;D 8) 8)

27-12-2004, 11:57 AM
5 per person fishing is enough. Bream under 33 cm aren't worth cleaning.

Lift the legal size to 35 and bag limits won't really come into it.

27-12-2004, 02:08 PM
Personally dont take bream unless they are at least 30cm long as I purley fish for jacks. However because a lot of people up here fish the same way you can easily catch 30 legal bream in an hour if you fished for them. But I do believe that a limit should be set. More importantly I think all creeks should be net free and then you wouldnt have the problem of bag limits

28-12-2004, 05:03 AM
It is a certainty that bag limits and increased min sizes will be introduced on many popular estuary species in the next 12 months or so.
You will have the opportunity to have your say on the issue via an RIS.
Judging by past RIS, you have to wonder if the decision isn't already made and public input via an RIS is just to make it look like we are part of the decision making process.
I'd be willing to bet that DPI already has a "draft" bag and size limit plan drawn up, just needing to go through the public perception formalities to get the rubber stamp approval.

There are pro's and con's for both bag and size limits.
Bag limits only affect the better anglers that catch their limit.
Increases in min sizes affect all anglers but doesn't stop the unscrupulous from filling the esky if they get onto a better class of fish.

I speak to a lot of anglers on a daily basis and the majority do not want to fill their esky or take home small fish.
It is not the majority that are the problem - it is a minority.
Stricter regulations will deter some from breaking the law but I still don't believe that is the whole solution.
Better enforcement is the key - more DPI feet on the Southport Pumping Jetty issuing fines, more officers on the water measuring fish, more inspections at boat ramps to weed out the ferals that don't do the right thing.

Dave ><>

28-12-2004, 06:02 AM

I'm not being funny - but do you want to see the draft.

Make no mistake - every finfish in Queensland will have a bag limit on it by the end of 2005.



28-12-2004, 10:12 AM
Thanks Brett - I was being diplomatic - I've seen the draft.
And I strongly believe it will come into force "as is" regardless of the RIS results.
Brett you are part of the decision making process, a representative of rec anglers - do you think an RIS will have any effect on what is to come?
Not having a go at you - just wondered what your opinion was - and I will understand if you can't post a direct reply here.

Dave ><>

28-12-2004, 12:43 PM
Make no mistake - every finfish in Queensland will have a bag limit on it by the end of 2005.


Thats a big call. There are still fish out there that havent been described as yet & others that are not worth the effort of regulation at this stage.


29-12-2004, 03:55 AM
I sometimes "wonder" :-X .....
IF there was no further "restrictions" being contemplated all-the-time ,what would "they" do all year..... ???

or the year after...... :-X

Size "should be" linked to sustainable spawning ::)
Bag "should be" linked to sustainable fishstocks ::)

"this years 23~25cms keepers ,will be next years "feral fishos"

Don't see how personal bag and size "choices" has anything whatsoever to do with setting new "restrictions"


29-12-2004, 06:35 AM

Sorry mate - should have clarrified - "finfish" as pertaining to the species list dealt with by the Finfish MAC. There's always debate about the species list between different management groups. We even looked at the bait fish species we cover in order to set limits. But to some, bait is an edible fish and it became all too hard. Hardiheads was a classic - should it have the default limit of 20 - pretty hard to release alive 200 hardiheads trapped in a bait net.

Without getting splinters by sitting on the fence - it really is too hard to say. What I can say is that there are an enormous number of factors that go into drafting the plan that not everyone may know about. One of those is the political factor. Not saying that it has involvement in the drafting of the plan but it sure can have a huge impact on the plan when it comes back from Parliament. Look at the last plan on spottie macs and Tailor.

I would say that the draft plan is one of those things that has been pretty well considered and is part of an agenda or target that fisheries management is trying to achieve. The RIS basically can knock the edges of things but is more than likely not going to change the overall direction. It can point out glaring mistakes or massive public opinion which of course is going to be noticed which inturn means the that area of the plan is looked at again but that rarely happens.

When a decision is made in a plan it's based upon evidence from scientists, environmentalists, statistics gathered from the field plus a range of opinions from those involved in the fishery. It takes a while to nut these things out but eventually a consensus is reached. Someone commenting on that decision in a RIS may not know all of the information on why the decision was made and therefore is amazed when there comments are ignored when the plan is put into practise.

I'm not saying that the process is without it's flaws but I can ensure you that all the decisions I've been involved with have been done with the best interest of the fishery in mind. What can seem commonsense to some may actually not be possible to draft into legislation resulting in some slightly unwieldy rules and regs. I can also ensure you that malice to any sector rec, pro, enviro, developers etc doesn't come in to any decision making.



29-12-2004, 07:34 AM
Size Limit = 25cm
Bag Limit = 10

But there has to be more policing, no point in introducing harsher penalties without more policing.

29-12-2004, 09:01 AM
I am curious Bugman...how many people make up the panel that decides on these issues, what is the selection criteria to be on the panel and what are the qualifications of those on the panel.

29-12-2004, 09:20 AM

To tell you the truth I can't remember the exact number on the MAC - I think it varies - ours has 16 from memory.

Fisheries determine the breakdown of the group. Ours goes something like this.
2 commercial, 2 rec, 1 charter, 1 tackle shop, 1 GBRMPA, 2 enviro, 1 seafood marketing, 1 wholesaler, 1 indig, 1 local govt, 1 science and 1 chairperson.

I think I'm missing a couple there.

As for how those positions are filled. Usually fisheries go to the representative group of each sector and ask for a reference. Sunfish used to supply the rec members to all the MACs up to a couple of years ago.

Personally I was asked by fisheries along with another Ausfish member after I arranged a meeting with the Minister and fisheries staff a couple of years back.

As for qualifications - The GBRMPA guy is a marine biologist - so is the chair and I think one of the scientists and one of the eniros are the same. The pro fishermen are pro fishermen - I'm a journalist masquarading as a rec fisher while the other rec fisher is Dave Bateman. The charter guy is a charter guy and the seafood marketing guy has been in the industry about 40 years.

We get guidance by fisheries staff members and can request information from fisheries research as well as make recommendations to aquire new research in certain areas if there isn't enough information on which to make a decision.

However the overall issue in all of this is money - everyone really wants to do as much as possible but sadly resources don't always stretch as far as everyone likes.

Hope that helps.

Believe me - more thoughts and opinions from this board have made their way into MAC discussions than I'd like to remember. I'm sure the same goes for the other MAC member here.


29-12-2004, 12:22 PM
Thanks Brett..i was just curious on that one.

29-12-2004, 12:24 PM
" I'm a journalist masquarading as a rec fisher"..or is that a rec fisher being a journalist just to make a few more bucks to go fishing. Damn..I wish I could have gone fishing this Xmas break.

29-12-2004, 01:56 PM
well lets get the ball rolling . why not have a max. size limit of 26 cm and a min of 23cm that way if they get to a certain size they can do what ever fish do in water ;D ;D ;D :-X ..

just my idea anyway i only take what i need for a feed any more is a waste


30-12-2004, 02:26 AM
Thanks Brett - very well put.

It is easy for us to sit on the sideline and critisize - I think after reading your comments most people can see that it's not as simple as they think.

Dave ><>

30-12-2004, 03:42 AM
I think the fisheries should introduce a new rule. Anyone in the possession of more then 10 bream should be forced to swim nude accross the creek or river they are fishing in.

30-12-2004, 09:56 AM
23cm is too small, up it to 26cm.
Though you may as well make it 1m if you're not actually going to enforce it.

31-12-2004, 07:14 AM
I read somewhere that a 1kg bream would be about 30years old...If thats correct a big breeder that size, sure would contain a lot of genetic dna/materials to pass onto next generations, Keeping future bream populations strong/healthy and sustainable.
Perhaps there should be a max size limit the same as Flathead/Barra or a smaller bag limit of say 1 or 2 of these larger fish.....What do you all think?


31-12-2004, 08:39 AM
A 1kg. bream , has bred enough!! , with no shortage of others to take it's 'place' in the scheme of things.

It's earned it's 'right' for the frypan.........yum!! ;D