PDA

View Full Version : when will the rules change fisheries



casey
24-09-2001, 01:27 PM
hey fella`s
i love to catch and release most of the fish i catch, with eceptions to a few trout and some salt water fish. what i cant understand is the bag limit, is it really nessesary to have such big bag limits, im sure magority of the fisho`s that fish would not hesitate for a change. just my thoughts..

also i have fished for a long time now and i have never been asked for my fishing licence, how many inspectors do the riverina. thanks :-/
catch ya.
casey

Simon
25-09-2001, 11:34 AM
With the limited numbers of fisheries inspectors in all states they have a tough job when you consider the vast areas that they have to cover and should be comended for the job they do ;D ;D ;D. I'm all for lowering bag limits on selected species to help save stocks. unfortunately this isn't the answer ???, like so many other areas changing these laws only affects the honest and responsible fishos etc. who would rarely bag out in the first first place as they will value their chosen fishery highly 8) 8). There is always that element that don't care and will flaunt the laws. A classic example was the tailor kill on moreton Is recently at the end of a local fishing club comp. their members continued to catch and kill hundreds of tailor :'( :'( well into the night after the comp had finished as the fish were still on the bite. This continued fishing isn't the problem if the fish are treated with respect and handled appropriately to maximise the fishes chance of survival. Of greater concern was the fact that a large percentage of other club members just sat back and watched it go on while they sat back and had a beer.
Anyway thats my bit

wishey
28-09-2001, 10:50 AM
Hey Simon,,,,,, it is funny no one mentioned that the pros netted 4.5 tonne of tailer after the fishing club fished there.
Even if the fish averaged a kilo a fish , that's 4500 fish caught, something no one could catch in a life time with a rod and reel.
I do agree with some of the other things you said , but it will still comes down to 10% of fishermen catch 90% of the fish.
catch ya later #

Lucky_Phill
28-09-2001, 11:28 AM
Hey Simon and the Wishter ! All said and done at the end of the day, if you have done your bit to catch and release, keep only what you want, front someone taking illegal fish, put pressure on the pollies, give the bird to a pro etc etc, you should feel good inside. Believe it or not, there are a lot of fishoes out there now who are not taking as much as they would have 5 years ago. Not through lack of numbers, just a realisation that stocks are down, and their kids want to fish as we do. Sure some bag limits are high, but are unatainable to the 90%, hey Wishey. Tailor is a particular species that has come under the microscope lately, due the bad pres from a rec club, but more so from those pros nettin tonnes of the buggas and seeling them off at $1.20kg for cat food. :P :P :'(. system A = mullet / tailor / jew / mackerel / fishermen / money / economy / . Cut out the tailor and you chop off at the knees a very significant eco system. No More Tailor Netting. cheers fellas

MARK
28-09-2001, 04:09 PM
Gday Casey,

Somewhere off in a distant, Nirvanic future there may be a time when the general fishing public is so well educated and so environmentally responsible that bag and size limits will not be necessary.

Until that extremely unlikely evolutionary leap does eventuate, bag limits are there to draw a line. If you step over the line, and get caught, a penalty is forthcoming and is therefore a deterent, a risk to your financial well being. Bag and size limits are a guide for those who aren't smart enough to realise that take,take,take, is not infinitely sustainable.

I personally think that bag limits need to be drastically reduced for some species. Lets face it, tailor and macko's don't keep that well, so unless you're inviting a few friends over for a fry-up after fishing, there's probably no need to take any more than half a dozen of these species.

It's been a long time since I caught any more than a couple of mackos in a session, anyway. Last few seasons in the north haven't been that great, but I heard that the pros are doing alright with their gill nets. This would have a negative effect on imposing bag limits, if the pros can take as many as they want.

I think that the limit on barra should be reduced to about two. This is partly spiteful on my part, because I seldom catch more than one anyway. But I think that barra should be promoted, I mean really promoted, as a tourist attraction and recreational sportfishing proposition. They earn far more money swimming around than as two fillets on a plate.

To do this would require a total ban on commercial harvesting of wild barra stocks, and strict policing of both commercial and recreational activities in areas where barra frequent. But could you imagine the revenue generated when the word go out that a certain area was crawling with barra? Particularly if it was an east coast, drive-to fishery?

There are certainly no shortage of punters willing to #fork out big dollars to travel to remote locations in the Territory and Kimberlies to experience guaranteed, non-stop barra fishing. What would it be like if it was closer?

The biggest problem with the afore-described pipe dream is that no one seems willing to give up what they have now, with a view to reaping the rewards some five, ten years down the track.

But I, for one, would not be too sad if they tightened bag and size limits in the near future. Make no difference to most of my catches anyway.

Cheers, bent graphite, Mark.