Night Reef

[FNQCairns]

Guido it's not negative critism it's positive critism over the negative treatment they inpart with zero justification, we today are believed to be very sophisticated and PC in treatment yet we have the most red necked rules/regs possible (even in fairlyland), the vast majority is based on no reasoning certainly not sustainability in any way.

10 years! try 1000 years if it were a true 10 years their regulations could be called conservational. The recreational take is so insignifcant it barely rates a mention in fishery management if they were honest over the state of play - the state of play is understood, it was when I was in fisherys conservation I cannot see that change it's very simple but hijacked by eco nazis (sp) under the umbrella of goverment self protection.

Warning! To anyone who fishes off Cairns, on Monday arvo we pulled a 10kg cobia from an area not far from Green Is, please decist all fishing activities with 1km sq of this area as now it must be certain danger of fisheries collapse or at least in need of repair as a result of this one fish, lucky we didn't bag out on these fish we would have ruined so much more of the reef for the future. The average rec fishing sustainable (by goverment regualtion) take has already been surpassed.- sorry.

cheers fnq

[Guido]

FNQ I 100% understand your comment on rec anglers taking bugger all compared to what commercial fisho's take. No arguements there. Discussions to combat this inequality can only be left to another thread and I would be by your side fighting that one.

Saying that, there has to be bag limits for rec fisho's, otherwise the whole fishing industry would get out of control. Taking 40 reefies/pp/trip is obviously too much for 'personal consumption', which is essentially what we go fishing for right? Increasing limits would lead to (more) under the table sales and (more) offloading of fish to neighbours down the street...it would turn into a blood bath. One big competition as to who can kill the most fish. That's not fishing for the future.

People are going out and reaching reef bag limits. This means fish stocks are ok. Why would you need any more than ya quota?

[Matt_F]

If only the world and a coral reef ecosystem had three simple elements, a farmer, a field and a bunch of tomatoes. It would make the whole job of managing a fishery so much easier. Have a chat to a fisheries modeler (which I am not) and they will step you through the complex algorithms involved in a fisheries model.

[Damo88]

Geeez soapy, no offence but that is one of the worst photo's ive ever seen. what a slaughter. you must have a really big family to feed!!

[FNQCairns]

Hi Guido no I did not in any way relate that, the commercial blokes take bugger all - in reality a fraction of a percent of the total sustainable take (by definition) it just the recs take even less!!!

Yes the fluffy and emotional side of the argument is just that and regards the regulated bag etc as well as other things.

Defnitions matter, if you cannot grasp them there is no use wandering around the issue, because I am simply not that polite to follow these days.

Try asking something like why does the DPI ignore basic scientific understandings, or why do gullible people still believe pseudoscience and untested claims over simple reasoning and solid science. There is no magic to it it's first year uni ecology!! Could even be highschool ecology these days.

Matt, yes it is exactly the same! (and the penny droped) all of the most important understandings relate to both, a person cannot just pick and choose to suit himself, it's not my job to educate.
Both the ecosystem of tomatoes and the reef ecosystem exist under the same rules and understandings in science -exactly the same only the storys are changed, read up on basic ecology to relate more.

Yes we are being coned, if the DPI or GBRMPA came out and said look we know our regulations if tested in real science could never pass a reasonableness test and could only pass a the eco-nazi test. I wouldn't have a problem with it but they pretend they are conserving when they are preserving.

It's bloody and it is corrupt and it is martial to all those the dogma inflics/abuses as a result of running shy of a regulation that in all true reason and real science should never have existed.

I once had a serious conversation with a creationist - remarkable why that flashback! I know when I am beat

cheers fnq

[disorderly]

Geeez soapy, no offence but that is one of the worst photo's ive ever seen. what a slaughter.

Think you dropped in on the wrong site ,Damo.

Maybe you were looking for this instead:-

www.greenpeace.com.au

Peace brother

[Damo88]

Well, they say the fishing gets easier the further north you go

[Guido]

I don't have the understanding of why departments are doing what they do, heck part of your post I just skipped past because it seems you know what you're on about. I can't dispute any of your statements. It looks like I am just another gullible person assuming the government is doing the right thing!

You didn't however answer my question on why you would need more than the current limit. I'm not green, i've been out a couple of times and come close to our 20pp limit. Thats a load of fillets, and something I would only ever do once a year. It filled the freezer well past our next reef trip...

[FNQCairns]

I don't have the understanding of why departments are doing what they do, heck part of your post I just skipped past because it seems you know what you're on about. I can't dispute any of your statements. It looks like I am just another gullible person assuming the government is doing the right thing!

You didn't however answer my question on why you would need more than the current limit. I'm not green, i've been out a couple of times and come close to our 20pp limit. Thats a load of fillets, and something I would only ever do once a year. It filled the freezer well past our next reef trip...

I cannot answer the bag limit question because in part it relates to what is 'sporting' and what the individual rec fishermans need, there are lot's differing needs, a family of 13 a bigger bag limit is more sporting than say a family of just 3 or just an individual , it's not about me or what I want.

The conservation of the reef wouldn't be harmed if they increased the bag limit near 100 fold -even 500 fold based on a real world fishermans natural limits -but what is sporting?

Untill there is even the slighest hint of a sustainability issue. Bag limits are simply emotional and abstract by design, not a fisheries management tool as they pretend they are ATM.

I cannot say you are gullible of not, i can say the majority of the population are but this is due to a lack of a wider consern than their front door and a belief in what they see on TV and in the newspapers.

This is why say the MB lockout zones will continue as planned - because there was no environmental need for them in the first place.


cheers fnq

PS There is a behind the scenes guiding reason for the ultra low bag limit's on recfisherman - the big reason and it has nothing strictly to do with fisheries management or the environment....think chop, chop and the days of gold rush past

[Matt_F]

Hi again FNQCairns,

I think I might give your advice on 'reading up on some basic ecology' a miss. Been there done that and have a doctorate in marine ecology. I can give you a number of peer reviewed papers published in international journals that scientifically prove that fishing influences reef fish populations, namely the age structure, on the GBR. Please tell me were you get your figures from that allow you to state that the bag limit can be increased 100 or 500 fold. The real issue here is that people do not like restrictions placed on their activities, which I can understand. I prefered the days when we could just go fishing and not have to think if we were breaking the law. But the reality is our population (in FNQ at least) is growing rapidly and so is the the market for live reef fish in asia. These restrictions have been put in place to PREVENT the overfishing of our fishery based on the best available science. I am a mad keen fisherman and spearfisherman, so if anyone should complain it is me, but I don't because I have a better understanding of how the system works compared with most people.

Cheers,
Matt.

[Matt_F]

Sorry Soapy for highjacking your thread.

Cheers,
Matt.

[FNQCairns]

Matt I know, you have stated your job in the past, I have already gone over it all, it may be pertinant for you to state at what level of sustanablity the GBR is running at ATM and based on a simple projection over the last 20 years, at what level in 50 years would the reef be at without any intervention at all? Unsustainable by world definition?? 100 years??? How many years till disaster can be measured?

I draw your attenetion to to the fact that the majority of the commercial take is a singular species and the rec take is all over the place, trout have been done to death and yes fishing influences populations from a bright green standpoint, it's been done to death here on ausfish many times but from a honest and sustainable viewpoint the reef is none the worse for it - esp a the stupidly low pressure our reef is exposed to and has only ever been exposed to.

My next door neighbour hates people picking her flowers as they hang over the fence onto public land, the tree doesn't care, she wouldn't know if she didn'tsee it happen, I suspect that may alter the age structure of the flowers if studied but is it unsustainable? What is her gripe conservation or preservation?

There is assay about threats to the reef somewhere, the ultra greens don't like it, the departments don't like it because they stumble badly over some of the claims as they do not fit the dogma withing the department. And those that draw their livelhood from within/associated with the department. If I can find it I will post a link.

cheers fnq

[Guido]

The conservation of the reef wouldn't be harmed if they increased the bag limit near 100 fold -even 500 fold based on a real world fishermans natural limits -but what is sporting?

What a load of crock! You're saying 100-200 thick schools of nanny's could get wiped clean up the coast without any future problems to their population? You and I both know it's not sporting, but people will do it, because they would be allowed to!

[FNQCairns]

Forgot, about my 100 or 500 fold, the context is at the current state of play we could have unlimited bag limits for rec fisherman, the real world says just the act of filleting lots of fish, wind, distance, boat size, work, ability, unlawfull to sell etc etc etc means that a NATURAL BAG LIMIT will be nothing even aproaching unsustainable - unsporting? I dunno leave that up to the individual.

Here it is http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/p....asp?pubid=414

free download.

Interested in how you can pull the reasoning apart. It smack of real world to me, devoid of deparmental preservationist ideology.

cheers fnq

[FNQCairns]

What a load of crock! You're saying 100-200 thick schools of nanny's could get wiped clean up the coast without any future problems to their population? You and I both know it's not sporting, but people will do it, because they would be allowed to!

Guido I dunno they might they might not, not my call, the point is if the regs are not based on sustainable approach they are based on nothing but ideology!! And ideology is nothing to respect, base the regs on real science, have a list of regulations based on conservation and either wipe all of the ones based on preservation and ultra green dogma round table guesses or list all of the dogmatic ones as a guide only. Would do away with the bloody and militant behaviour of the DPI regs, our government has been shown in the past to value dogma over basic rights and equaitable treatment -just look at the greenzone criminals.

Guarantee all those who were dealing with the first few convicted had a glass of cordial to celebrate. This IS the quality of the individuals in our governing departments recfisherman are dealing with.

cheers fnq