are these the same fish? (QUEENSLAND GROUPER) top 2 supplied by fisheries
With all the conjecture about what it is.......ALL posibilities that it could be result in it being an illegal capture....if it is a Qld Groper...its no take...if its a cod its over max length...same result no take. Like I said...just another nail in the coffin of the recreational fisho.
The only way to find out if its a Groper, or any other piscetorial is with a DNA sample, very simple to do.
There are also scientists that debate amongst themselves, after all its a human conditioning, or is it "We are the robots".
It's not rocket science.
Peter
Still looks like a QLD groper to me , look at the fins shape and in particular colouration toward ends
Ian
Alcohol doesn't agree with me, but i sure do enjoy the argument!!!
So easy that every person has it readily available to them??Originally Posted by bondy99
As far as I am concerned using all info provided by fisheries, it is not a QLD Grouper. I have seen the fish in person and agree with their choice to keep it. The choice was not made lightly and they checked all the info available more than once.
To vindicate before a real final result is made - that is the NAIL IN THE COFFIN for fishos!!
Crowhog the picture you provided is not a picture it is a drawing of a groper so there is diferences but the strung up fish is a QLD groper no doubt it's spent it's life in shallowish water and has that darker colouration but at that size they always loose their yellow mottle to sum degree, i gringed when i saw it on the news that guy's gonna be prosecuted for sure.
Before they DNA it they will probably look to key it which should nail down which particular species it is, even in absence of colouration, QLD or a federal museum would probably have the experience/tools/respect to do it - fishery's i doubt would have any well qualified enough experts but then again what counts for proof these days in a court of law is directly proportional to how much defence the defendent can afford.
cheers fnq
It IS a Queensland Groper and nothing else. There is no question, chances are the fisheries officers have never come into contact with the species, therefore can not identify it correctly.
As was said previously there is no way this practice can be construed as legal. Even for those who wish to argue that it is another species.
On another side, there should be a decent photograph of a QG for identification purposes put out by the DPI, although they would need to take the time to find either a freshly yet naturally deceased specimen, or to put a live fish on a mat. Which is too much effort for that sector.
There is no need for a DNA test to determine species. Just a scientific key, which should be on a hand to fisheries officers.
nice to see your sticking up for a mate but YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!!!!! So you say that they couldn't identify it and checked all there available info which didn't help, yet they still decide to keep it???????? And they didn't make that decission lightly???????It would seem to me a easy decission to make, i dont know what it is , i cant keep it!!!! Simple!!
And you Crowog agree with them?????
Mate he deserves the book thrown at him and with any luck thats exactly what will happen!
Ian
Alcohol doesn't agree with me, but i sure do enjoy the argument!!!
Jesus, how hard is it to identify a fish? Should I wonder if the next Jewie I catch is actually a flathead in disguise!?
Crowog, there is only 2 known sepcies of Cod/Grouper (Serrinidae Family) that grow to that size, the Gold Spot Estuary Cod and the Qld Grouper, QLd Grouper is No Take and Estuary Cod has a max size of 120cm, in either scenario this fish is an illegal keep sake. And your mentality of keeping something, especially if you do not know what it is, is just that, plain mental, its people like yourself who give rec fisho's a bad name, and 'accidentally'poison there freinds and families with an unknown fish on the plate....well done, you're right up there in this years Darwin Awards.
How hard is it to take a photo, let a fish go, identify it from the photo, so next time you catch the same species, you KNOW what it is and the regs on the species.....geez, I've done it countless times and never felt anything less than masculine, at least I know I am acting responsibly in both the eyes of the law and the for welfare of my family and friends.
And I hope the angler in question is at least viewing these boards, at the very least he'll know his mistake, and what the Rec angling community thinks of his actions, so much so, that IF he doesn't get pinched by the DPI, he will at least know not to do it again.
It was not my MATE who could not id the fish, it was the 2 fisheries officials with all there expert books who could not id the fish.
If DNA testing was so easy then why still after 4 days has there been no OFFICIAL answer to what species of fish it is?
What did YOUR MATE identify it as before HE decided to KILL it ?
Sounds like BULLLLSHIIITTT to me. They / he killed a fish he couldnt identify, begining & end of the story & he should be strung up be the testicals for doing so. And WHY did YOUR MATE go to the MEDIA? Leigh
and in response to your question crowog,,,, if he WAS an ausfisher, ,,, i'd place a bet that he would have placed the catch on the forum looooong beforehand. and would be easily recognised by a fellow ausfisher,,,,,Unless he is somebody new,, and just wanted to create some fun for themselves,,,
i ""think"" its a cod???????????? wtf,,,, even chopjr calls it a cod,,,,lol
can it get any better??????????????,,,,,,,,,,,,,,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgG_TxEPaQE
Crowog
What did your mate think it was?
Alcohol doesn't agree with me, but i sure do enjoy the argument!!!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
