Reply With QuoteNice catch.Looks like you had a busy night.
Fair bit of filleting to be done there.
Scott
Went out for an overnighter, but the trout weren't chewing so we made a night of it.
Nice catch.Looks like you had a busy night.
Fair bit of filleting to be done there.
Scott
Nice haul mate, would love to see how many you could have got if only the trout were on the bite.
Thats a nice bag LIMIT OF 30
some nice reds there. looks like you'll be eatin reefies for a while
great catch,
bballfisho
yeah for 3 blokes it doesn't look even close to 90 fish, better luck next time soapy.Originally Posted by goldie 70
It's not 30 per trip/per day, is it??
cheers fnq
Last edited by FNQCairns; 12-09-2007 at 05:40 PM.
It is a total 30 fish or 60 fillets per person at any time in your possession.
Golide, not trying to say you are wrong in any way, but where did you find that 30 fish/person limit?
A closed season applies to coral reef fin fish. See Closed seasons - tidal waters for details. In addition to individual take and possession limits for each species above, all coral reef fin fish species have a combined take and possession limit of 20. For a complete list of coral reef species see the Fisheries (Coral Reef Fin Fish) Management Plan 2003.
Sorry I stand corrected it is 20
Geeze that catch comes close to ya 20 per person reefy bag limit (if 3 were on board). Sounds like not many people know about this rule. I know myself from a couple of trips that the fish just get thrown into the esky, not expecting to make any bag limits. Before too long you're having to dig down for a rough count. Personally, I'm stuffed thinking about filleting that many fish!
Guido
I think that its about time some people read up on there rules and become familiar with them or maybe post some pics that can not in anyway incriminate themselves.
Yeah I agree, me included obviously, problem is the the majority rules are abstract and based on nothing apart from ideological mindset the department has at the time. Hard to learn rote style with no solid basis and retain the information.
cheers fnq
FNQCairns,
You have no idea what you are talking about. The size and posession limits are based on growth rates, size at sexual maturity, when and if the species will change sex, an estimate of the population size and the total fishing effort amongst other things. The rules are made on the best available science which will always be a work in progress. It is called fisheries biology, maybe you (along with a lot of others) should try and learn a bit more about the biology of the fish you catch. It might help to change some of the ignorance which is all too common. And no I do not work for the fisheries dpt. or any related dpt.
Cheers
Matt picture a 100 acre field of tomatos, composed of differing species/type if you like all perpetually/perenially (sp) existing within an ecosystem, all will have differing stages of growth, flowering, ripening etc etc. How very basic.
Picture a farmer who by their very effort cannot, no way, no how, too windy, poor health, wife wants more.....whatever, pick but a couple of bages of these tomatoes per year but he may wander the entire length and breadth in his quest, so leaves the massive majority of each species alone and the sheer number of individual tomatoes/per m2 of all species alone to do their own thing- sustainability is what an honest regualtion amount to. We have the Bright green definition of sustainabilty forced upon us by out DPI - not a true definition. Why because they can, they need not listen to anyone and they have the arrogance of being untouchable (so far) on their side.
I understand the doctrin behind the need for the regs as they stand but at a higher level I understand why it is doctrin.
Of coarse you understand I am speaking of rec fisherman ie the farmer did not contract a bloke with a blanket harvester for his 100acres of tomatoes. Recfishos being the DPIs patsies s another issue.
Above,, I stated in the "majority" - some of the regs are sound for example flathead, winter whiting.
The regs can only be considered as an absolute crock! when the style, effort and true catch OVER TIME are looked at from a sustainability perspective.
Simply a goverment initiated con using the lure of untested departmental, university, CRC research results that will never by design test the true state of play.
A VERY good parallel can be drawn between GBRMPA green zones and fisheries regualtions, both weight very heavy on the 'precautionary principle' as their only gift of reason. Simply a con - in the majority and certainly as it relates to recreational anglers.
cheers fnq
PS 100acres = total fishable area, farmer = recfisherman in total and tomatoes = fish.
Last edited by FNQCairns; 18-09-2007 at 07:04 PM.
FNQ....something to add to this arguement:
I would like to know the reason for such negative critism towards the work of groups such as GBRMPA etc. I by no means am "Green" but would like to think the decisions they make are based on more than precautionary reasons. They are, as you stated, at a higher level than us. They research the breeding cycles, growth rates etc for fish and would surely be making an informed decision.
You mention, "test the true state of play". In the real world, this is impossible. They can't simulate what's going to happen to any accuracy as you are aware. They only have estimated populations, capture rates etc etc. I'm sure it is a difficult task with the limited knowledge available to promote sustainable fishing. I don't understand or want their job...do you?
I for one would rather precaution now, over drastic intervention in 10 years time.
PS. I had to dodge 4 pro's nets on my way through the creek out the the reef last weekend...Lets leave commercial fishing to a whole new thread.
Guido
Posting Permissions