Reply With Quote
Myself not being a Barramundi fisherman, (although I would certainly give it a go when I get the chance), I;ve been following this thread with an objective position.
It's clear that for the most part at the very least, that no-one suggests that the importance of the fishery's overall health is of no importance. That everyone, (even across species) wants to be able to reliably catch fish today, tommorow, and generations to come is apparent.
The question seems to be just what that mechansm is for the long term sustainability for the fisheries. I for one, don't much like the tatse of ANY freshwater fish, and so have released each and every single fish I've caught subsequent to a few at the very outset of getting serious in that aren some 12 or so years ago. Given that many of those years was a dialy event catching Bass and yellws, that's alot of fish..
That said, I hope no-one assumes my angle is to be "selfish" or any such thing (not that I feel anyone does think so), just to be clear.
I was just wondering is the same mistake could possibly be made as has been made in say the area of Kangaroo culls. Barra may well be an Australian fishing icon as mentioned, but the Kangaroo is on the national emblem. And many people argue constantly that they should never be culled, indeed if one's accidently injured on the road that all possible assitance should be metered out by the "offender".
Like wise, many farmers refused to have cultivation banks made on their farms to stop the destruction of the soil, because "those silly bastards in the city wouldn't have a clue".
Yet I'm sure everyone here understands that both of these views (kangaroo culls and farming reluctance) are essential to the ongoing preservation of their respective managments..when the bigger picture is taken into account. Not just "the poor cuddly kangaroo" or "it's my farm, and I know best".
No these aren't areas of fishing, but they are areas in which is emotion had prevailed, with a micro view of "how I see it", both would have resulted in disaters. I'm sure there's countless other examples.
I personally have no idea what the real need for the fiishery in question is, but I think whatever the experts advise is the best for the overall outcome. Surely no-one would disagree with that. After all, these dams went from no barra to meter long fish in a proportiantely short time overall. The people involve doing this were (and I assume still are ) not idiots.
I notice it's generally agreed at least that "education" is one of the compelling mechanisms that has benificially changed the public's fishing habits, to one of responsability. Is it not then reasonable to assume if it's found by those in authority have deemed it essential that fish should be culled, that we, the uneducated should do as we teach? And learn?
Anyway, as I said, I have no idea what's the official word, but I have emailed the department to find out. I was just curios to find out if the re-action against the cull theory is based on knowledge or emotion.
I (like everyone I imagine) wants only the best for the overall outcome, however my feelings on fish is the positive utalitarian one, which after all is the basis which Barramundi were selected for this project in the first place. Not for their iconic value I mean..
cheers
rob
Seriously though, they are great sticks and Nav did most of the negotiating with Ian and found him a delight to deal with. They are a great investment, I just wish I got to use mine more. Did Starling lose his Hi Roller in Awoonga recently?..if I'd known that before we went up there, we would have put the really deep divers on and trolled harder lol.
Originally Posted by black_sheep
