View Full Version : Esturay Cod - Closures?

11-12-2004, 04:56 AM
Thankgod these closures are almost over. Anyway was wondering are estuary cod are no take species during the closures as I have read information which says 'all cod'? Any information would be helpful

11-12-2004, 06:32 AM
Dev you go get them estaurie cod youll be rite all estaurie species are good targeting
....notts so

11-12-2004, 09:30 AM
except that Estuary cod are on the Coral Reef Fin Fish list - doesn't matter where you catch them - if you keep them during the closures you'll get nicked (we've asked DPI on this one)

11-12-2004, 10:46 AM
The estuary cods are two species - Epinephalus coioides and E. malabaricus. If they are included in this closure, they should be listed here: http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/fishweb/14634.html

I can't find it there, but that may not mean anything. Moffy, where is the list that you found it on?

11-12-2004, 11:49 AM
Estuary cod are actually listed under-"other tidal species" and are not listed under "coral reef fin fish" This means they are not subject to the spawning season closures.
I've tried to get similar info from the DPI on several occasions, and find that the answer is different for every officer you speak to, 5 different answers in one case!!
Go by the regs sheet, if there is a stuff up its their fault!!

Regards, Tony ;)

11-12-2004, 01:39 PM
yeah. i heard the estuary cod and i think gold spot cod (if not the same fish) can be taken.

13-12-2004, 02:49 PM
I know for a fact you cant take gold spot cod? Is there someone from the DPI out there who can help us on this one?

14-12-2004, 03:41 AM
The estuary cod or orange spot cod -Epinephelus coioides # (grants)
is not listed as a coral reef fin fish, therefore not subject to the closure!
The latest release from the DPI- the Reef fish field guide doesn't have it listed as a crff or in the regs Brochures, or on the DPI website. Same goes for E.malabrachious-(spelling?)

# # # # # # # # #Regards, Tony

14-12-2004, 03:22 PM
Cheers can I quoye you in court on that?

15-12-2004, 03:27 AM
I would very happily go to court on any one of the regs that are stated in their regulations. In fact I would love to go to court on a matter such as that to set a precedent.

Regards, Tony ;)

15-12-2004, 05:22 AM
Good call Tony - far too confusing!

Derek Bullock
15-12-2004, 08:53 AM
Uuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmm. #Why, instead of arguing about it dont you read the legislation. #It does list Coral Reef Fin Fish quite clearly in Schedule 2 starting on page 133.

I dont think there is any need for a test case.

Here's the link http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/F/FisherCRFFMP03.pdf



Sorry guys, just changed the link above. Was at work when I did that and we have a direct link

15-12-2004, 09:04 AM
There is no arguing Derek
Some people are worried that what the regs sheets say, are wrong or do not cover the regs acurately. For example in one part of the regs it states "all cod" in another it states that the crff list is all species considered to be crff. Yet that list does not cover all cod. Estuary cod are not listed!

A test case would only be needed if they tried to prosecute someone for descrepancies in their regulations info brochures etc.
Regards, Tony ;)

Derek Bullock
15-12-2004, 09:15 AM

This is a direct cut and paste from the Fisheries (Coral Reef Fin Fish) Management Plan 2003. #Page 160 under Schedule 8 which is the Dictionary or what used to be called definitions in older legislation. #This is the definition of what is a cod under the plan.

species of cod or groper means a species listed under the
heading cods and gropers in schedule 2.

Cant see how you can misinterpret that.


15-12-2004, 10:07 AM
seems i need to be more careful with the names - greasy cod (on the list) estuary cod, gold spot cod, black spot cod are pretty interchangeable common names as far as i am concerned - however in practice they may be different species - given the specifics of the regs (i.e scientific names), as stated above the "Estuary cod" (coioides and Malabaricus) are not on the list, while the "Greasy Cod" (Tauvina) is.

for mine, given that i know of fisheries officers up here who cannot tell the difference between Large Mouth Nannygai and Red Emporer (i.e coversation with inspector - Inspector - "nice Red Emporer that" - My Mate - "um its a Large Mouth nannygai" - Inspector - "really?") i'm loathe to give them the benefit of the doubt in being able to tell the difference between the cod species - even if there is a marked difference.

My comments stemmed from discussions Daintreeboy's brother had with DPI officers who basically said - don't keep any cod.

for me, although its not right, the hassle of having to show in court that you were in the right is not worth taking home the cod in the first place (although they do taste great - especially if they've been feeding on Mud crabs)

i guess it all comes down to confident species identification.

anyone seen the guide books - do the photos make it any clearer?

wish i'd been through this exercise before Friday night DaintreeBoy and I could have had a couple of nice Cod for dinner (coidides and Malbaricus - we got one of each i think) - and that Grassy too Tony ;)

15-12-2004, 10:15 AM
This is a quote from The Tidal Waters Regulation Brochure.
Coral reef fin fish species incorporate ALL (note ALL) coral trout, emperors,cods and gropers, parrot fishes, surgeon fishes and sweetlips,tropical snappers, sea perches, fusiliers, banana fishes and wrasses.

So which is it, those listed in schedule 2, or all cods and gropers?
Don't know how you could misinterpret that?

Regards, Tony

Derek Bullock
15-12-2004, 10:28 AM

The legislation is the law. #Simple as that.

That quote goes on further to refer you to the the legislation.

Coral reef fin fish species incorporate all coral trout, emperors, cods and gropers, parrot fishes, surgeon fishes and sweetlips, tropical snappers, sea perches, fusiliers, banana fishes and wrasses. See complete list of coral reef fish species referred to in Schedule 2 of the Fisheries (Coral Reef Fin Fish) Management Plan 2003 (copies of legislation are available on the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel website).


15-12-2004, 10:42 AM
G'day Moffy
The Estuary cod is listed under "other tidal species" in the regs brochure so I would have no problem challenging the fact if neccesary.
Its the same with grassie sweetlip, they are an emperor and are listed in "other tidal species.
Its the part where it says all cods and all emperors that cause the confusion, and thats on the same page!
I have no problems with interpreting that, but for anyone who didn't follow the introduction of these regs, or only fishes occasionaly it is contradictive in many ways.
I gave up on trying to get clarification on these regs from DPI officers a long time ago, they all seem to have a completly different idea on what the regs state and fish ID skills are definately not on the job qualifications list

Bloody useless beurocrats, Regards, Tony

15-12-2004, 10:46 AM
Must be some confusion here with the interpretation of the word "ALL"
It's pretty clear to me. I learn't the meaning of that word in grade one.

Regards, Tony

15-12-2004, 12:55 PM
OK guys listen to this story it's a goodun!!
Months ago my brother rang fisheries doing the right thing asking about the latest coral reef fin fish regs (he has no website access). He specifically asked about gold spot Estuary cod, and the reply was "all cod". He double checked by questioning why and what about black spot estuary cod and the response was again "all cod". He asked what if you caught one in the river and the response...."all cod". He told me this so when I rang to check out the opening date on the November closure as a mate wanted to go Sunday morning 14 NOV (which also needs to be clearer as no times are put up and it does not say "up to and including Nov 14th) I also asked about the cods and the response was also a very adamant "all cods". This is in the coral reef fin fish table right at the start BUT there is a little asterisk and underneath it lists cod exceptions, some no takes, some different size and bag limits and last but not least ESTUARY COD (see other tidal species) which referring down to that table has it listed therefore removing it from the coral reef fin fishes and placing it in the other tidal species section (even though the inspectors are not telling us this).
Soooooo when I rang up again this arvo to AGAIN ask the response was again the same "all cods" I asked about Estuary cod and the bloke said "they are included also". At this stage I pointed out the asterisk bit and it's referral to the other tidal section where the fisheries guy said "If you catch one in the river it's not a coral reef fin fish but if you catch it on the reef you must throw it back as it's a coral reef fin fish." I pointed out "but they the same fish?" and he went on to compare them to the Grass sweetlip (he termed it a Grass Emperor) and said the same is true for them, catch one up the creek and your fine, on the reef you're not. He started scrambling around for a booklet (which he is posting me) to double check this info he was giving me. I also asked at this point "what if I catch it on the headlands, not out on the reef but definitely outside the river mouth?" He couldn't answer that one.
At this point I moved on to the question I had about Fingermark, he said they're fine. I pointed out that although they are in the other tidal species table, because the fisheries website refers to them as LARGE SCALE SEA PERCH, in the coral reef fin fish section regarding All tropical snappers and sea perches, it should have placed them in the following section titled tropical snappers and sea perches EXCEPTIONS. It was at this point he realised he'd got it all wrong.
Estuary cod are effectively excluded from the coral reef fin fish by their placement onto the other tidal species table which this guy ended up finding out while I was still on the phone to him. When you follow the table, it actually makes sense. Fingermark are also on the other tidal species table as expected BUT they should have been excluded in the same way as the Estuary cod was from the coral reef fin fish table as fisheries refer to them as Large Scale Sea Perch which puts them on the aforementioned list, again something the guy admitted. He went on to say there are a lot of mistakes and holes in the regs at the moment and need to be fixed (you think?).
The link to the full list of Coral reef fin fishes is a better list to go off but this table is on the web for all to see and is not being followed by the fisheries.
PS Check out the rules about Grass Sweetlip, again contradictory to what the inspector said (which he also admitted)

In summary, I would not be keeping an Estuary Cod (Gold or Black spot, this guy didn't know there was two by the way) until fisheries get their act into gear and start understanding their own legislation.
That should be good for a laugh ;D

15-12-2004, 02:50 PM
Interesting story Daintreeboy!

It certainly does indeed seem the fisheries dont know their own rules
Makes them look pretty stupid actually :-X

Derek Bullock
15-12-2004, 03:01 PM

I dont want to keep harping on this issue from my perspective. #Everyone keeps referring to the FISHWEB site on the Internet. #The FISHWEB site is only a guide and not the law.
You may not realise it but the DPI actually dont claim that the information on FISHWEB is correct. #In fact they say the exact opposite.

If you look at the bottom of the FISHWEB page there is a link called Copyright & Disclaimer. #It's a common thing on all Government Websites. #I have done a copy and paste so you can read it in it's entirety.


The Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Queensland, makes no representations about the content and suitability of DPI&F materials presented online for any purpose. Specifically, DPI&F does not warrant, guarantee or make any representations regarding the correctness, accuracy, reliability, currency, or any other aspect regarding characteristics or use of the information presented in DPI&F materials. The user accepts sole responsibility and risk associated with the use and results of DPI&F materials, irrespective of the purpose to which such use or results are applied. Users should confirm information from another site if it is of sufficient importance for them to do so. In no event shall DPI&F be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or tort, rising out of or in connection with the use or performance of DPI&F materials.

Yep, it sucks don't it. #It's what is commonly called covering your butt and in my not so humble opinion they have got it wrong. #If those Inspectors are reading from their own website and not the law then they are just as dumb as it it.



Derek Bullock
15-12-2004, 04:29 PM
I just noticed another interesting little comment on a FISHWEB page. #This one can be found on the Recreational Fishing Rules in Queensland - Tidal Waters at http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/fishweb/11416.html

Below is a summary of some of the provisions of fisheries legislation. They are not a precise statement of the law, and furthermore deal with matters that are subject to change.

Once again no acceptance and no responsibility. #How can you have something so widely advertised and then say it isnt a "precise" statement of law when the full force of the law will be against you if you follow it. #Particularly when the very next sentence says:

Penalties apply for breaches of the fisheries legislation and infringement notices can be issued on the spot for some offences.

Makes you wonder why DPI bother to have a website that is appearing to be so unreliable.



15-12-2004, 05:50 PM
i think we're all on the same page here.

bottom line is there needs to be better clarification of the regs etc in simple terms for those who don't have access to them or know how to get through them if they do have access.

am yet to see the guide books put out (will do shortly - thanks Tony) - maybe they help

at the end of the day - what chance does the less sophisticated fisherman have when the fisheries officers can't tell us what the rules are or the difference between different species.

16-12-2004, 12:13 PM
Got a reply to my e-mail from Ian Fricke of DPI. So if you are in the Townsville region, landing an estuary cod in the closure period (like I did yesterday) should give you cause for celebration!
Estuary Cod are exempt from the Coral Reef Fin Fish (CRFF) Management Plan and are included in the 'other species' that are captured under the Regulations. Basically they have a min size of 35mm and a max size of 120cm with a bag limit of 10.

Because they are exempt from the CRFF Mgt Plan, there is no requirement for fishers to remove the pectoral fin as you have stated. Should you have any other queries or concerns in relation to Fisheries Legislation, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks.

Ian Fricke
District Officer
Qld Boating and Fisheries Patrol
Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries

17-12-2004, 03:52 AM
Im under the immpression that the coral reef fin fish list (or schedule 2)
Is the list that has been passed by legislation. This is the list I refer too.
It is on the fishweb,the tidal waters brochure and in the reef fish field guide as well as the coral reef fin fish managment plan.Are you saying we can take no notice of that list even though it is passed by legislation?
It is the only source of info on what species are coral reef fin fish available!
This IS the list I am saying to go by!
The website has only been refered to on a couple of occasions in this thread as an extra source of info, and it contains exactly the same fin fish list as the coral reef fin fish managment plan.

Regards, Tony ??? ??? ???
Do you have another source of info for these regulations?
If so please inform us.

# # # # # Regards, Tony

Derek Bullock
17-12-2004, 04:24 AM

Schedule 2 is part of the Fisheries (Coral Reef Fin Fish) Management Plan 2003. This is the written legislation or law and is what people should be referring to not the FISHWEB Site. I have listed it in the post on here for Queensland Legislation.

Yes, Schedule 2 has been reprinted on FISHWEB, but it is a reprint only and as pointed out above if the DPI have made a mistake in printing it they accept no responsibility for it or any other information on FISHWEB.

What I am saying is be very careful about what you read on the FISHWEB Site. FISHWEB is a quide only and some of the information is incorrect. The issue you raised the other day where the FISHWEB Site talks about ALL cod and grouper is totally wrong when you read what it actually says in the Fisheries (Coral Reef Fin Fish) Management Plan 2003.

Tony, I do apologise if I am making this seem confusing and from some of the comments I am getting back here and offline I may be. I most likely spend 25% of my day cross referencing legislation at work. That is because it's a major part of my job to ensure people are following the legislation and to me it is just so straight forward. Also it is hard to try and explain some things in a few words on here.

As I said above, get hold of a copy of the Fisheries (Coral Reef Fin Fish) Management Plan 2003 (or read it online) and be wary of the information on FISHWEB.



17-12-2004, 05:28 AM
In my opinion you are just confusing this issue.
The Only part of the regs we are refering to as correct is the coral reef fin fish species list. This IS the same as in the managment plan. I have had a copy of the managment plan since this first started. The list (schedule2) is the same in all sources.
What you are saying is the whole point of this post, that the regs sheets and fishweb etc are incorrect in some parts and that the list or schedule 2, is the only part to take serious note of THAT IS LEGISLATED. This is what I was saying in that I would gladly go to court on their discrepancies, because of the contradictory and unsure nature of what is written on the info that has been handed to the averidge fisho!
We all realize that much of the info on these brochures etc is incorect, that is the whole issue.

Regards, Tony

17-12-2004, 05:37 AM
On a slightly related note. Friends of mine (some lawyers and others pub stool warmers), have said that even though a company may have a disclaimer written in their documentation stating "No responsibility taken". This may not stand in court because of "duty of care" laws.

Can anyone clarify this?

Derek Bullock
17-12-2004, 11:15 AM

We agree although I don't know that it is worth the cost of going to court though.



18-12-2004, 05:17 PM
Derek if you have a closer look at the "ALL COD AND GROUPERS" comment there is an asterisk which then explains further about estuary cod.
My point was the fisheries inspector I asked didn't have a clue what he was talking about. First he reckons they are illegal to take, then illegal only if caught on the reef, then they are ok outright. I'm with Tony on this one, if there are mistakes on Fishweb, then fix the bloody things, schedule 2 is on there and if that's the list produced by legislation then it should be correct or DPI better watch out they don't get sued by some of the many cheesed off fisherman out there.

Derek Bullock
18-12-2004, 06:07 PM
Couldn't agree with you more on that one. FISHWEB should be correct but it isnt and thats why they have the disclaimers. To save their own butts.

Maybe this is the sort of things the Fishing Party should be doing. Making representation on behalf of Rec Fishers to the DPI. Maybe they are I dont know but I certainly hope so.

Because if someone doesnt get it changed some poor sod is going to get caught and end up with a big legal bill and a possible conviction.

When it comes to a court case, solicitors, barristers and magistrates will refer to the legislation and not FISHWEB.

You guys seem to think I am against what you are saying but I am not. FISHWEB has some wrongs on it and if you follow it then there is a possiblity of breaking the law. Thats all I have been saying. It needs to be fixed.



18-12-2004, 09:59 PM
I can't help but feel a little sorry for some of the DPI inspectors out there it must me a bit of a nightmare for them to work with these regs that have been legislated and handed to them to police...

19-12-2004, 02:24 AM
Derek, I have just picked up on this thread. I have been busy working on the GBRMPA Arlington Reef thing but yes. This is one for "us". Trouble I am short on both time and expertise on this issue (& you seem to have a pretty good handle on it).

Draft up a submission and we can get it adopted as a party submission and lodged. The best part about our submissions now is that they carry the automatic weight of 30,000 votes and will get listened to rather than individual submissions.



19-12-2004, 07:44 AM
How about pushing for better education on these issues also - if there was a comprehensive, accurate, understandable (and free) rules book readily obtainable from tackle/bait shops, we wouldn't need many of these conversations.


Derek Bullock
19-12-2004, 02:21 PM
Thats what the problem with FISHWEB is Leo. #As soon as you try to translate the the acts and regulations into a rule book or as is the case with FISHWEB, you get mistakes.

I'll think about that KC.


Derek Bullock
22-12-2004, 02:42 PM
Maybe, just maybe ........... if people want to either post on here or send me a message telling me accurately "What is wrong with FISHWEB". I may consider drafting something up.

Just remember guys I am not a member of The Fishing Party and I am not opposed to the current restrictions and closures. I do believe however, that the DPI needs to provide accurate information on what the regulations are.

So post or message me what you see as being wrong with FISHWEB.


23-12-2004, 03:21 AM
Youv'e been telling us whats wrong with fishweb since this post started!

Regards, Tony ;)

23-12-2004, 06:04 AM
What is Sunfish doing about this?