l love my concrete jungle

[spike2]

there is a general perception that canal development is bad for the environmennt , well l dont agree ,if there so bad why is it the bait fish like herring ,mullet , gar ,seem to be thriving , last week l fished with craigie and needed some aquarium food one cast of the net saw 200 herring come on board , :-/ this week l have been out and about fishing and l cant ever remember there being so much bait in the water , which also equates to heaps of predators ,they call us the concrete jungle which we are but it seems fish like concrete ;D , l have been fishing new canals around carrara and they are already producing good fish , and from reports good muddies , is it possible all the rocky walls and calm water canals are providing ideal breeding grounds
does anyone know if the fisheries keep a record on the bait levels of the gold coast it would be interesting to know if records show numbers increasing
l am of the opinion that the bigger the concrete jungle gets the better the fishing gets , bring on the canals and bridges ,
:o :o :o
spike

[Gorilla_in_Manila]

Spike,
Interesting idea. Not sure if anyone keeps a record of the estimated amount of bait swimming around free. More likely the records are of tons netted, or numbers of predators caught etc which might show an increase. ???
But i was thinking that maybe it seems that more fish have come around the canals because the rain hasn't been around to flush them out to sea. The new bag restrictions seem to be saying they are noticing a decline in offshore fish. This might be as much due to the lack of nutrients washed out of the rivers, as it is to fishing pressure. I've noticed that the reports of fishing around the mouth of the clarence river (Yamba / Iluka) haven't been too flash for quite a while, whereas reports from the upper reaches (Grafton & beyond) have been saying they have been getting some great fish. That will probably all change after a heap of rain. Might be a case of making hay while the sun shines, so to speak. :D
Cheers,
Jeff

[jeffo]

i like your way of thinking spike. it is the same up here on the sunshine coast. i dare say that the bridges and trawler jetties around here have acounted for more jacks, bream and trevally than any of the "native" areas of the river.

[ferralflyer]

Why did the southen tiger prawn fishery in the bay drop by 70 percent after Rabey bay canal estate ??? ???,from all the good you see theres more you don"t see or don"t care about.

And what about the lots of canal dwellers that have bad habits like throwing there suppergreen grass clipping on the canal step waiting for high tide to take there waste away and think nothing of it.To me its just bringing a lot of small cane farms closer to the waters edge ,not good for the hole collective only good for a small hand full of fisher that can make use of a canal,Cheers ;)

[spike2]

I'm not saying that we should not preserve natural environments. Its just that we should not assume that because it isn't natural it isn't good for the environment.
The Gold Coast canals are full of all sorts of marine life we have sea worms, nippers, crabs, oysters, sharkes, jacks, travellays, etc etc as well as a healthy population of bird life, like sea eagles, cormorites, shags, pelicans, none of these creatures are being forced to live here but they have all made a lifestyle choice. ;D. By my observations all of these creatures are thriving. I can produce hundreds of images of a healthy canal system. The challenge for the critics is to come up with evidence of an unhealthy system. If they are able to, maybe something can be done about it.

[jeffo]

"made a lifestyle choice" ... lol ;D i love it... the rich upclass birds live it up on the canals ;D ;D

[Fisherman02]

i would say that algae starts growing off the many piers, wharfs and of course the concrete walls and provide an abundance of aquatic vegetation for the little critters to munch on.
cheers jack

[banshee]

Fish eggs and fry need mangroves and wet lands to hatch and thrive,canal development replaces this ecosystem and if allowed to go unchecked will eventualy be detrimental to the body of water they are on.

[spike2]

gold coast canals have been here for thirty years , they must be bloody old bait fish im seeing ;D

[spike2]

another healthy fish from the concrete jungle caught today by sarah

[Chrisso]

That's one serious bream there Spike. #:o Where abouts was it caught? #;D It looks like the entrance of a canal.

[banshee]

Am I right in assuming that you reject the line of thought that says fish need wetlands/mangroves to breed? Are you also advocating unrestricted canal development?

[spike2]

l dont know where the fish breed its a bit tricky to catch them in the act but l know they grow up in the canals if you want to find a 30mm flathead or a 20 mm bream or a tiny whiting you will find them right up in the canals , l catch tiny fish out the back of the burleigh lakes there hasnt been a mangrove there ever , lve seen baby bream feeding on jetty pilons . as l have already stated l dont want to tear up wet lands , but dont auto atically assume canals are bad , because from what im seeing it doesnt stack up

stephen millington

[Cubesy]

Spike

Interesting topic.

Applying a bit of Darwin's theory (survival of the fittest/natural selection) it is those species that are able to adapt best to changes in the environment that will survive. On that basis, it is not surprising that a species such as bream, which has a catholic taste as evidenced by the baits they will take (including non natural baits like chicken and beef heart and dough), are the ones that survive best in an unnatural environment such as a canal development.

Just because certain species are able to adapt it does not necessary follow that it is good for the environment as a whole.

You list a fairly braod range of species in your posts as inhabiting the canals, it would be interesting to compare that to what species were in the area before the development and see if the diversity has in fact being maintained or has diminished.

Regards

Cubesy

[ferralflyer]

From what I just read some fishers still think milk comes from a supermarket not a grass eating cow in its natural enviroment,canal estates are man made habitate not mother natures womb and nursery
that was destroyed to put in those pontoons and walls that you fish.

In USA it used to be 100,000 dollers per hectare on to of what they paid for the wetland to make canals for development,the extra money went to buy other wetlands to lockup to protect from future development,something that may have saved hincinbrook and trinity inlet to name a few ,Cheers :)

[spike2]

actually most of the goldcoast was a dairy farm before it was developed into canal estates , l dont see whats that natural about hearding up a heap of beasts and sucking the life out of them , imagine all the manure om those wetlands / scrubby /baron land . as l said l will accept the gold coast canal systems are bad and causing untold damage if some one can show me evidence of it . l want examples ,of harm the canals are doing ,the canals even though they are man made still have heaps of natural features and for mine the system is working , if the best you can do is attack my intelligence you arent offering a strong argument . :P

[basserman]

I have to agree with you spike i don't see canals and for that matter water frount homes all that bad yes they have removed the natrual shoreline and changed the river flow But think about it not too many rivers are now unchanged.
I'm lucky where i am i can fish both natrual rivers and also have some canals and both have about the same amount of fish stocks and types in there.
In port macquarie we have had monster jewies come from both deep hole in the river proper and the canals
i have fished for bream on lures and caught good size and numbers in both.
I think fish are a lot tougher and more adaptable then we think
fish have been around for millions of years and are always adapting.
so in ending i don't think canals are all that hurting nor the best but i do think there are more damageing things out there hurting our fish stock like; Dreageing, people driveing over weed banks, runoff, poeple NOT takeing home their rubbish (eg. Plastic bags) ect.

well thats my gripe, Tight lines to everyone and i hope you get the big one (then let it go again!) :D ;) :D

[basserman]

sorry about all the spelling mistakes i spent too much of my school years fishhing and not going to classes ::)

[banshee]

Probably wouldn't hurt for some of you blokes to read the last Fisheries post that Lucky Phill shifted over regarding wetlands/mangroves.

[anu]

as an ignorant 15 year old im not too sure of the situation, but what i think is that these canals are actually providing extra space for fish to breed and grow, as all would know, fish love structures and anything that can have things growing on it, therefore i believe that these canals are infact benifiting the fish, the canals do remove some wetland area, but the area would probably be removed anyway for housing the gold coast's ever increasing population. the single greatest loss of wetlands for queensland was the building of the brisbane airports, and the area consumed there is now completly un inhabitable to fish, whereas fish can actually thrive in these canals, not to mention the monstor crabs that can be found there especially at nights

[spike2]

mr anu you may be 15 but you have shown more understanding of the argument than anyone else , it is not so much a question of canals versus wetlands , but given development has to happen to some of or coastal areas , perhaps canals arent the worst option . and l congradulate you on at least recoginsing the possibiltiy and keeping an open mind on the subject

stephen millington

[Mudcrab]

Yer orl rong!
Living in Raby Bay and also having fished the place since I was 5 years old, I can assure you that whatever damage was done to the wet/sand/mudlands of old have been more than compensated for by the enormous increase of the canals in providing a fish nursery and habitat!
Firstly, I can snag squire/snapper up to 3 or 4 kgs off the back of my moored boat (don't even bother asking me which canal I live in!), bag the odd muddy, knock off the occasional cod, great mongrel eels, bream up to 40 cms, black trevally (kill da mongrels), #30 cm Moses perch, chuck lures into the schools of deep sea mullet to hook out those delicious little trevally and bag the odd luderick (believe it) and I know where there are lots of them all year around!
For a break, I can lie on the gangway and see schools of baby catfish eel (aaaaggggghhhhhh), stingrays, squid from bubs to monstas, baby muddies crawling over the rocks in summer, countless "little fish" everywhere, around Xmas, zillions of baby shrimp making the water pink in their numbers along the rocks, dolphins, brain coral, sponges, scallops and other squishy stuff on my pontoon filled with crawly things and other wrigglies! And this is ONE pontoon only! Oh forgot, necking the Straddy oysters off my piers with a freezing bottle of Jacobs Creek Bubbly!! Or maybe take the ski out to the entrance and fill a bucket of them for a real feast - big mothers they are! So, to the knockers come on down to .............. Canal and help me sort out these damn snapper! Damn miserable life it is here.............. hang on, was that the scream of my reel just then?

[Chrisso]

>:( :-[ I will find where you live! Don't Worry ;D ;)

[mackmauler]

im not to worried chrisso, me thinks the fish are hallucinations from the toxic oysters 8)

[spike2]

hey chrisso im not that hard to find call me on 0417333113 we will fish ;D

[spike2]

ok firstly l must recognise that this is a fishing site , so it is reasonable to assume that most people looking at this site are going to look at the marine environment from a fishing point of veiw . so naturally we would expect some bias on this site given that caulification , l have beeen through the responses and the result is seven of us think there is some good to come out of canals and three of us think canals are the worst thing too ever happen to the marine environment . now taking the full power of judge and jury and the fact that this is a fishing site l would say the votes for and against are fairly even , in other words not conclusive , which makes me happy because all l am looking for is an open mind on the issue . dont bag my concrete jungle without some concrete evidence

cheers spike :o ::) :-/ ;D :-*

[mackmauler]

spike lets put some jack pics up from the jungle ;D

[Duncs]

One of the problems of discussing this kind of thing is that whole 'good' versus 'bad' argument. Almost every environment in the world has had major alterations by humans. Trying to find a comparison against an untouched environment or baseline data to work from is difficult if not impossible to find. It goes without saying that what is good for one person is not neccessarily good for another. There are also other influences such as pollution, commercial fishing and population pressure to contend with.

A canal development can provide habitat for plenty of baitfish and opportunistic predators that take advantage of the masses of cover and ambush points. This creates an environment that is great for a light tackle lure fisher. When rain comes the baitfish are flushed out into larger waterways to become food for other predators, however, the runoff from the land will not contain an awful lot of food (there isn't that much life in a backyard).

On the other hand the same area of wetland would be home to millions if not billions of small critters such as prawns, crabs, plankton and small fish, but probably less large predators per square metre than in the canal environment. The predators that are in there may be less accessable to anglers as many would often feed way back in amongst the mangroves and salt marshes on a high tide. On the other hand when it rains and on large tides, massive amounts of food is flushed out into rivers, bays and offshore. This food then sustains much of the major fisheries up and down the coast.

In terms of biomass (the total amount of living critters) the wetland is far and away the larger producer. In providing food to all kinds of fish from local to the continental shelf, the wetland is also a massive contributor compared to the canals.

If providing reasonable fishing opportunities close to peoples back door is the measurement, then the canals are a great place, especially if you are into light tackle lure fishing which suits the structure rich environment perfectly.

In the broader scale of things, the wetlands provide more food to more fish over a much larger area. We're never going to remove the canal estates that currently exist, they provide a fun easily accessable place to fish and great habitat for big bream, jacks and trevally etc. However, in my opinion its vital that no more wetlands are destroyed in the name of canal development (or any other for that matter). Its still the main supplier of food to the estuarine/inshore environment and as such deserves the highest levels of protection against clearing or development.

just my thoughts!

Cheers

Duncan

[jeffo]

they hold fish... end of story ;D

[jockey]

I looked into this sort of thing for freshwater a while back. The number of fish (productivity) basically depends on the length of the shoreline. This is because so many juvenile fish spend there first months right up on the edges in the weedy bits. I have no idea whether creating these canals increases or decreases the length - depends on what you started with. You could improve the canals by planting mangroves or other plants along the bank. Even rocks would be better than a bare concrete wall.

I think we are missing the most important bit - these coastal swamps are vital spots for sediment to settle rather than going out to sea (and smothering the coral if you live up north). A canal won't do this for you (it would fill up too quick). Remember the most productive areas are swamps full of mosquitos and other insects which are at or close too the base of the food chain (plant eaters). Growing algae and getting in the vegetarian fish isn't good enough. Yes I know mozzies aren't plant eaters. Remember we actually have to spray poison from airoplanes in order to live in these areas.

Also remember that coastal development is not necessary. They are being developed purely for lifestyle reasons - people want to live on the coast, preferably on flat land (that used to be swamp). We can only support such huge populations on our swamplands because we are so rich. Don't kid yourselves that fishing is supporting all those people. There aren't that many pro fishermen. From a food production perspective they are deserts above the water and require little effort to harvest what's below.

[Gazza]

Hey ,I can afford a cow paddock ,so let's return it back to it's natural environment ;D ;D ;D

Hey ,I don't mind being FATALLY gored by a bull ,but gee just having your arm or leg ripped off by a shark, IS NOT much fun.

Hey ,who drank my beer!!!! ,while i was typing this ??? ;D ;D ;D

Hey ,Merry Xmas to ALL ;) ;) ;) :D :D :D

[agnes_jack]

Duncs
Couldnt agree with you more. Its easy to look at the small picture and Im sure that there are heaps of good fishing oportunities created by all the structure that is provided by the concrete jungle, but what is supposed to be there is what provides the basis for the bigger picture. Its a huge recycling food chain and disturbance in any one given part means that something thats suposed to be there will not be. It may suit us to have easy access to good angling species, but can any one really know what the long term affects of such changes will cause. There is far more complex issues at hand than a good population of bream and mangrove jacks. If anybody thinks that they no more about nature than mother nature herself, then let me know so I can come and worship you.

I for one am not knowledgable enough to play with the way things are supposed to be.

Regards Tony ::)

[webby]

Bring back the 74 flood and we might have out wetlands back. ;D
Gazza i reckon you'd make a good cocky, bull or no bull or maybe a gersey cow to play with.
Spike we'll let you keep on playing in your concrete jungle for the time being, just let us know when that dam at the pub is full, then we can pilfer your Jacks. ;D
But as long as governments keep reaping the taxes from these canal developments, they'll never pull their heads out of the sand, until one day they'll realize its too late to save whats left.
regards

[Gazza]

once I can afford to sell the wife ,hello gersey cow ;D ;D ,and the cocky bit?? ,show me yours and I'll show you an "internet" picture ;D ;D

[banshee]

3 to 4 kilo reds from a canal.............Bullshit