Double Island Lagoon netted and cleaned-out by the pro's!!!How can this be allowed???

[4x4frog]

mullet is my favorite fish to eat..yummy.

Yeah, but you support the Rabbitohs

[4x4frog]

WOW, haven't been around Ausfish for a while and what a thread to read as my first on return.

I read almost all of the posts and boy, didn't malby create a small cyclone with his opening post.

The one very important point not raised by anyone, that I saw is the fact, after an area is netted, there will be NO fish, not only because the majority have been taken by the netter/s, but because those fish are believed to send out distress signals other marine life hear and are therefore reluctant to enter an area of immanent danger. How long this phenomenon continues is unknown but apparently it is why the fish are scarce for a period after a net is drawn through an area.
Do a search on it, won't post links as they are to PETA etc.
Just another angle to look at the yellow/restriction zones rec-vs-commercial fishos.

[Fallen angel]

I have been watching this thread to for a little bit and there are a few comments that i feel need to be made.

First the area is open to commercial fishermen not more to say about that, some body should have made it a yellow zone before. A little antagonistic i know but that is the simple truth.
Secondly, please please please do not go down the road of supporting the greens on any fishing matter. Commercial and Recs have a common enemy and that is the greens, believe it or not the recs have more to loose then commercial. How, is for another day, just imagine if the greens and commercial guys got together.

A commercial licence's worth is only worth what someone is going to pay for it, if it has no history it is still worth something. An East Coast barra license will fetch anywhere between 35K and 40K with no history on it, if it has history is will get a little bit more. Buying and selling licenses has got a little more complex these days with the ability to now sell endorsements and not having to sell the primary license as the history remains with the primary license.

Now here comes the controversial part, if you want to make a difference with regards to commercial licenses being bought out then start paying a license fee yourselves with the fee money going back into buying out licenses. Don't expect other Queensland tax payers to pay for our pastime, it is a users pay world out there.

Voluntary Buck back. If the government does not introduce anymore yellow or green zones or any other means of restricting what the individual can do, THIS WILL BE THE FIRST VOLUNTARY BUY BACK. It will be interesting to see how it works out. A buy back means nothing unless there is a very good management plan associated with it and this takes time to develop. Oh and by the way if you want voluntary you (the tax payer) will be paying far in excess what they are really worth as the government will need to create a market that people will want to sell to them. The government will also need to buy back all of the commercial gear associated with the license too.
I could go on and on about this topic as I have been through a few and watched a lot of crap go on to with it, it is not a nice process to go through.

While I am at it I will place my cards on the table while I am here, I am a commercial fisherman (non Practicing ) and I am an avid amateur fisherman love getting out when I can with the family. I have both eyes open and I see the good and bad of both sides and I firmly believe that with good management plans and good fisheries managers there will be a place for both codes of fishing and you will see more and more good catches.

I am sure that I will get a few responses, but before you do respond I ask that you ask yourself have i got both eyes open.

Oh and the buy back is going to be 3 million dollars each year for the next 3 years.

Cheers and tight lines to you all.

[Moonlighter]

I have been watching this thread to for a little bit and there are a few comments that i feel need to be made.

First the area is open to commercial fishermen not more to say about that, some body should have made it a yellow zone before..

I must disagree strongly here. As I said earlier, yellow zones have a very nasty habit of turning into green zones.

Guys, get it into your heads that marine park zones of any colour ARE NOT PUT IN PLACE TO HELP MANAGE FISHERIES, THEY ARE NOT A FISHERIES MANAGEMENT TOOL. THEY ARE A TOOL OF THE GREEN LOBBY!

Do you understand? These zones have never been requested by any fisheries management agency in Australia, they always are the tools of the environment Deapartment.

The supposed fisheries management benefits of marine park zones are simply clever attempts at conning the public and fishermen into thinking they benefit us.

But if that were true, then ask yourself why have no fisheries management agencies asked for them? It's because in the Australian context, they have very limited efficacy as a fishery management tool. There are other more effective and better targetted ways to achieve fishery sustainability. Marine parks are big hammers to crack little peanuts.

So once and for all, lets all (rec and pro) agree never to ask for any colour marine park zone as a means to achieve a fisheries outcome!!!

To do so plays into the arms of the greenies, and they are definitely not on the side of sensible management approaches.

There are other ways of declaring areas as rec or pro only available under fisheries legislation.

Cheers

ML

[bondy99]

For a bloke supposedly studying at uni Bondy, your research capabilities are pretty poor. A quick google search and a couple of minutes of my time found this info...

In 1985 the Quota Management System (QMS) was introduced. The
QMS divides the total allowable catch (TAC) into 3,500 units with
access limited to 125 diving licence holders. Each unit currently equates
to 715 kilograms of abalone and the total allowable catch (TAC) for
the fishery has remained relatively stable at around 2,500 tonnes. Other
control measures include mandatory possession of a measuring tool to
gauge abalone sizes; area closures; rigorous reporting requirements and
the creation of management zones in State waters, each with a TAC.
There are 33 licensed abalone processing operators, with 70 per cent of
the catch processed by the State’s 12 largest operators.
In 2007, 65 per cent of the TAC was sold live (1581T); 4.5 per cent
(109T) was frozen; 30 per cent canned (729T); and 0.5 per cent (12T)
dried. Live market sales add an average 92 per cent gain in Australian
dollar value from beach value, representing an attractive strategic
investment opportunity. Value adding is significantly less for frozen and
canned products – 23 per cent and 21 per cent respectively3.
Increasing numbers of Tasmanians now share in the Tasmanian abalone
fishery. Since January 1991, non-diving investors have been able to
purchase abalone quota units directly. Currently, 450 people hold the 3500
quota units, with profits reinvested back into the Tasmanian economy in a
multitude of ways that generate employment and wealth opportunities.

And....
I don't know about victoria, in Tasmania each quota cost you 280,000 and you can only catch 715kgs per year. mind you its live weight.
on the market, processed abalone only cost $280 per kg meat only. deduct all the weights and bibs and bobs. the license holder only can sale to processors for only about 40 kG, LIVE WEIGHT. WHICH I THINK ITS A BAD INVESTMENT.
BUT THATS TASMANIA, considering they hsve more abalone than us.

You are like an Italian tank. 2 forward gears and 5 reverse....lol.....

Therapy, Google is flawed , you need full scientific papers with peer review, even you know that, Once again you have deviated away from what I had posted above.

Statistics can also be manipulated to suit an audience and can be misleading. Are you and Apollo saying statistics cannot be misleading or manipulated?

Maybe you should have talk with the Kaiser in South Australia.

Bondy

[Dezzer]

Abalone licence these days I think is $10 million if you wanted to buy one , I know of only 2 people in Australia that have these, one bloke is called Skinner and the other called Thrower.

Cheers, Bondy

You're a classic. Thats my belly laugh for the day. Thanks for that.

[Apollo]

Therapy, it is no use arguing with a fool mate, so don't bother responding to him. He is a typing contradiction.

[bondy99]

Apollo, I noticed you came in too, hook, line and stinker. I did not know you are so easily aroused

[PinHead]

Now here comes the controversial part, if you want to make a difference with regards to commercial licenses being bought out then start paying a license fee yourselves with the fee money going back into buying out licenses. Don't expect other Queensland tax payers to pay for our pastime, it is a users pay world out there.

something does need to be done but definitely not a license. The non fishing consumer of fish should also pay if there is a license buy out.

The NSW system is referred to often whenever this license joke is raised.

NSW fee = $30 per annum
NSW has 1000000 rec anglers
NSW has 2137 km of coastline

Total income = $30000000

Qld = let's say the same license fee - $30 per annum
Qld has 700000 rec anglers
Qld has 13347 km of coastline.

Let's just use 75% of Qld coastline as some is remote.

Therefore the NSW fee = $14038 per kilometre of coastline
The proposed Qld fee = $2097 per kilometre of ocastline

Bloody big difference.

To equate to NSW the Qld fee would have to be approx $200 per annum..no thanks.

PLUS..user pays is a furphy..there is no such thing. NO school, hospital or road etc would exist if all based on user pays.

[PinHead]

Therapy, Google is flawed , you need full scientific papers with peer review, even you know that, Once again you have deviated away from what I had posted above.

Statistics can also be manipulated to suit an audience and can be misleading. Are you and Apollo saying statistics cannot be misleading or manipulated?

Maybe you should have talk with the Kaiser in South Australia.

Bondy

lost me..why is google flawed..lots of peer reviewed papers that google can find. Google is just a search engine Bondy..nothing else.

[bondy99]

Pinhead,

Sorry mate, I am aware of that Pinhead. I should have clarified what I wanted to say about google. Google is ok as a search engine, however Google Scholar is the one that should be used as a search engine for published research papers. "Google Scholar" tends to be more precise and does not pick up much garbage or junk that normal "Google" does .

Bondy

[bondy99]

something does need to be done but definitely not a license. The non fishing consumer of fish should also pay if there is a license buy out.

The NSW system is referred to often whenever this license joke is raised.

NSW fee = $30 per annum
NSW has 1000000 rec anglers
NSW has 2137 km of coastline

Total income = $30000000

Qld = let's say the same license fee - $30 per annum
Qld has 700000 rec anglers
Qld has 13347 km of coastline.

Let's just use 75% of Qld coastline as some is remote.

Therefore the NSW fee = $14038 per kilometre of coastline
The proposed Qld fee = $2097 per kilometre of ocastline

Bloody big difference.

To equate to NSW the Qld fee would have to be approx $200 per annum..no thanks.

PLUS..user pays is a furphy..there is no such thing. NO school, hospital or road etc would exist if all based on user pays.

I agree what you said Pinhead,

I'm sure others will contradict this since I support your view

Bondy

[bondy99]

You're a classic. Thats my belly laugh for the day. Thanks for that.

That's alright mate, good to see someone can laugh unlike some who look at life too serious or full of negativeity and afraid to smile. it might crack their face

Next time you go to Woollies or Coles (if you go there) and your at the checkout and the operator says "Hello, how are you" with a smile..not many customers acknowledge back, lots or rude and arrogrant patrons I would think, both male and female irrespective of age.

Bondy

[Dezzer]

Bondy, if I was to respond any other way than to laugh at the constant dribble you come out with, I'd be banned.

[Pistol_P]

I must disagree strongly here. As I said earlier, yellow zones have a very nasty habit of turning into green zones.

Guys, get it into your heads that marine park zones of any colour ARE NOT PUT IN PLACE TO HELP MANAGE FISHERIES, THEY ARE NOT A FISHERIES MANAGEMENT TOOL. THEY ARE A TOOL OF THE GREEN LOBBY!

Do you understand? These zones have never been requested by any fisheries management agency in Australia, they always are the tools of the environment Deapartment.

The supposed fisheries management benefits of marine park zones are simply clever attempts at conning the public and fishermen into thinking they benefit us.

But if that were true, then ask yourself why have no fisheries management agencies asked for them? It's because in the Australian context, they have very limited efficacy as a fishery management tool. There are other more effective and better targetted ways to achieve fishery sustainability. Marine parks are big hammers to crack little peanuts.

So once and for all, lets all (rec and pro) agree never to ask for any colour marine park zone as a means to achieve a fisheries outcome!!!

To do so plays into the arms of the greenies, and they are definitely not on the side of sensible management approaches.

There are other ways of declaring areas as rec or pro only available under fisheries legislation.

Cheers

ML

Fantastic post ML.

I couldnt agree more.

Pete