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

[Lovey80]

Is said this in one of the LNP threads about the $10m promised to buy back licenses up and down the QLD coast. That 10m won't go very far throughout the whole coastline but 10m to create Australia's biggest Recreational Fishing Haven would go a long way.

1. RFH from Point Cartwright to the tip of Fraser including the Mooloolabah, Maroochydore and Noosa rivers (not including the Great Sandy Straights MP).


2. Cash left over to start a restocking group on the maroochydore river (central to moololah and Noosa rivers). High target species like Mulloway, Jack etc to be stocked into all three rivers. River and beach fisho's alike will gain the benefits. Monies raised from the beach permits to go directly to restocking/rejuvenation group.

Job done, brings in millions for CanDo's fourth pillar (tourism)

[Fallen angel]

Ahhh good to see some passion.....

The problem is guys is that when you say ban all the nets I am assuming that you mean just your little area. When you say that the nets wipe out an entire spawning school you are talking about your little area...

The reason I am making this assumption is that you must be looking at just your little area and that you are blinded to the bigger picture, I am also amused to hear that when you ban nets the fishing in the area is awesome and life is forever better, it never rains, your outboard never breaks down and oh well life is just great.

Way back when the dugong sanctuaries where introduced up in the hinchinbrook area there was much joy and elation that netting was banned from the channel and that the fishing would be better. Damn they were right the numbers of fish caught in the hinchinbrook tag and release tournament increased dramatically for I think for three years in a row. But low and behold the numbers after that dropped off to at one point to just below or the same level as to when netting was allowed. Now I know these guys new how to fish I watched and I was in awe of them at times.

Next area I would like to talk about is Karumba, now at Karumba you can still catch a decent feed of fish at times. It is also interesting to see how many fish is caught at Karumba by amateur fisherman, I used to see on average 4 wheely bin of skeletons a day at one caravan park (there are three at Karumba) now 4 bins x 3 parks = 12 bins. Those bins each had more then 100 kg in them so that is close to a ton of waste give or take, I do know a thing or two about the ratio of waste to product, from that 1T with an average of 50% recovery there was an average of 1.5 to 1.8 tones of fish per day coming out of the local area. There were also days when there was nothing caught. Now there is a no netting zone around Karumba about 8 miles in all directions, funny enough this is not the best area to fish in (to many amateurs) everyone wants to go north or west to I would have to say one of the most heavily netted areas in queensland. I also learnt a thing or two off the pros over there too they new their stuff too...

I have seen the damage the amateurs can do I have also seen the damage that the commercial sector can do if not regulated and monitored. I can say that the fisheries in queensland is one of the most regulated fisheries there are. My issue and then the one gets me really going is that when you say to ban all nets you are only looking after your little area but the flow on effects are far and wide and affect many other inshore net fisheries that are quite sustainable and are able to target a species of fish with little buy catch with little or no waste.

I also need to agree with a comment that was written before and that is that the commercial sector supplies fish to the part of the community that does not fish. This part of the community that does not fish also has a right to put up their hand to have their fair share of the resource for which the commercial sector harvests for them. Now I know this is an old argument but it is the truth.

I have also stated before is that I truly believe that there is a future for both sectors if the fishery is managed well and the management of the fishery is well funded. A measure of a well managed fishery is that you have a viable commercial sector and healthy amateur sector. It will also mean that there will be pain on both sides and not everyone will get what they want.

It will also mean that if you want more of the resource sooner or later it will mean that you will have to pay, after all the only sector of the fishery that is expanding is the amateur sectors. Combine this expansion with reducing areas to fish in and also far less areas for the commercial sector to operate and you will see far more hostility before it gets better.

Anyway each sector has its problems, the sector that says that it hasn't got any problems has its head buried that far up ones #%¥€ it is not funny. And again whilst we are arguing with each other the only groups that win are the greens.

[Slider]

Dare say Pinhead that if the whales could ball up the bait in that fashion, they would. Humpbacks in Artic waters - can't remember which migration - use 'bubble netting' (swim under the baitfish and release bubbles that form enclosing rings around the bait) to ball up the fish and then 'lunge' feed through the ball. But the whales in that particular migration are the only ones that have learnt to use that technique. All the other humpbacks rely on predatory fish such as tuna and dolphins to ball up the bait on the surface and then lunge feed - and spoil the party for the tuna/dolphins by breaking up and consuming the bait ball.

Thank you Fallen Angle for posting - you have made some valid comments which do require consideration. I'll make the following points however in relation to those comments.

While I don't doubt that most of us would like our own little area to be selected as a net free region, and I can hear the surf as I type of the little area that I want to see free of nets. The ambition for me, at least, is not about having a region that will suddenly fire without nets and me and my mates can all make hay. I think I speak for everybody in that the recreational fishing community would like to see effective management strategies put in place that ensure the sustainability of 'wildlife' populations which subsequently provides sustainability of commercial and recreational fishing generally - including nets. Anglers all along the Queensland coastline are noticing a reduction in catches and are of the belief that current management practices for many inshore species are not adequately providing sustainability for anything or anyone.

Should more areas be made net free, then your concern regarding shifting fishing pressure is legitimate and worthy of a great deal of attention. This mistake has occurred time and again with buy back schemes and the currently proposed voluntary buy back will achieve outcomes that are no better. In this instance of a proposed buy out of K8 licences which are zoned, and N1 licence holders who can demonstrate a history in the region, it is intended that the licence owner would have their licence, boat and all gear bought by gov with a 5 to 10 year 'no netting' clause associated to prevent shifting fishing pressure. Therefore the cost per licence that gov needs to come up with is high. I do maintain however that mullet can still be netted by a couple of licence holders, but inside the mouth of the Noosa in quantities that probably don't need to be much less than current catches.

Now, we need to look at what has happened in NSW since 2001 when the 30 rec fishing havens were declared. 209 inshore netting licences were bought back by the NSW gov in this process using rec licence revenue. Catch statistics for the NSW inshore commercial net fishery since establishment of rfhs, have been maintained, or have increased despite there being 209 less licences and 30 less areas in which to use them. I'm told by commercial net fishers that since 2001, their catches have improved, they're making more money and they're happy and respected members of their community. At the same time, recreational fishers and researchers are reporting better catches from within the fishing havens than pre 2001.

The NSW rfhs are not terribly well implemented in my opinion and I believe that better results could have been attained with lesser number of closed regions. But it doesn't matter for the purposes of this argument, as the facts speak for themselves of viability for pros and fish availability for recs.

'Spillover' is the key to the success of the revamped inshore commercial fishery in NSW. Most surf/inshore species are migratory, or partly migratory and move from habitat to habitat and always have done. Rejuvenated fish stocks in havens under strict bag and size limits do spillover into other regions and this has been demonstrated conclusively in any number of species in any number of locations.

However, the problem with the tailor fishery in NSW is that tailor spillover into Qld waters where they are netted. Any gains that have been made in NSW through rfhs and the banning of tailor netting other than bycatch are undone by no such parallel arrangements in Qld. It is no coincidence that every tailor fisho in NSW is noticing over the last 2 years in particular, that the tailor seem to have disappeared, which we in Qld are noticing at the same time. Stands to reason of course.

Tailor are a species that we vitally need to be abundant. Not just for recs or pros, but for various seabird populations, some of which are either endangered or protected by international treaties. It makes sense then, to protect tailor and their dependent species, as well as a number of other inshore fish species in the process, that their major spawning grounds are protected from netting and overfishing by recs. Noosa Heads to Sandy Cape encompasses the major spawning grounds for tailor, which coincides nicely with beach driving and camping - as long as they have their toilet - and the type of nature based holidaying that is popular and healthy. It makes sense to make this region a recreational fishing haven.

The Hinchinbrook example is an interesting one, though I can only trust that there are no other factors involved other than just recs overfishing the net free region. If that is just the case, then it would seem obvious that bag limits didn't support the net ban. It's ludicrous to take measures to protect fish stocks and then let the recs go berserk in destroying them. I know the benefit in that instance was intended for dugong, but if the intended beneficiaries in Cooloola are fish, then recs who are provided with a rfh should have stricter bag and size limits applied in order to ensure the maximum benefits available and support the measure rather than undermine it. Remembering that rfhs should be intended as a conservation measure for all Australians, then recs have an obligation as the main beneficiary, to uphold the expectation of the public that the conservation measure and the taxpayer dollars invested, works.

The other example at Karumba doesn't really mean much as such unfortunately - unless you can provide details of whether the recs travelling to netted areas are actually catching more fish than in the closed region, what the geographical features of the netted region are and why fish aggregate there etc etc. I know at Teewah, the best fishing along this 60km long beach is often right in front of Teewah, but Teewah people still drive 25kms up the beach looking for fish that they could have walked to. There is a perception of the grass being greener further afield and especially amongst tourists who have heard about a given spot and by hook or by crook, they're going to fish there. The results often are disappointing or could have been attained closer to home.

If the removal of nets from strategic regions is a long term remedy for the current downward population trends, then we have to work out ways in which this can be done to best advantage to fish, seabird, dolphin, shark, turtle, humpback populations, and with minimum disruption to seafood production. It can be done, but it does require planning, and not reactive steps that might look good to the general public or the green movement, but deliver little.

[frogfuzz]

"The recreational harvest is likely to
substantially exceed the commercial "

They use the word "likely" - in other words - they have no idea of how much the reco's take. These loose statistics the gov't use only account for fish taken to market, they don't account for the huge by-catch kill. Add in the by-catch kill and the commercial guys would be doing much more damage than the official version.

Line fishing discriminates. I can catch an undersize Dart chasing Bream at Teewah, and safely release the Dart to live another day. I know they do survive, as I have, at times, caught the same Dart twice (they are greedy buggers!). Ditto Tailor, flathead etc

Net fishing DOES rape a fishing hole/gutter - it kills all the other undersize fish. Instead of predicting that we'll be in perpetual drought, that the world is going end because of "Man Made" Climate Change, sucking off the taxpayer teat of Gizzard's Carbon Tax, the CSIRO need to get off their collective butts, do something useful and develop better nets. I suspect many rec fishermen/women would be much happier with the pro netters, if the nets did not kill so many juvenille fish. What's the point of size limits if one sector of the community can indiscriminatley kill junvenille fish (almost legally, as the law turns a blind eye to it) before they reach breeding age?

I fish the Pumistone Passage a lot, and this time a year it is not uncommon for me to catch Bream in excess of 40cm (25cm for a Bream is way too small to keep for a feed). An old time farmer from the region told me, before he died, that it must be because netting has ceased, as he hadn't seen Bream that big in such numbers, like that in the Passage since he was a boy. Now, if only the Mangrove Jack would make the same recovery in the Passage (the stories he told me about the Jack!).......

I also had old timers tell me how the waters off the Island I lived on would be "black" with fish, so thick you could "walk on water". I haven't seen mullet schools like that for years, and recos take very few mullet. I have seen large schools in the Passage (not "black"over acres & acres of water though) - its almost like they know the nets are waiting outside of the Bar. My neighbour on the Island (born and bred Islander whose family tree on the Island pre dated that of 1770) told me how he believed the Tailor would tend to by-pass a particular beach, as the netters always hit them hard on that section of the Island in the past. This guy was a fishing legend on the Island, and he knew the Island as if it were a part of him. His belief of the Tailor patterns seems to tie in with another comment made above. This guy was one hell of a rec fisherman and "knew" fish, he won the very prestigous fishing comp many times, in the section he competed in, and he used the money to buy a new outboard for his boat. He used no electrics to find fish, he would just look at the land, and say "drop the anchor here, bud". No sounder, no GPS.

Like many I am not against Pros netting Mullet (tailor is a different proposition all together for me), but surely someone, somehow can develop better nets. I don't think the nets should be allowed in the lagoons though. I may not have a biology degree in marine studies, but I do have the skin damage to show a lifetime on the beach/water, and I know that these lagoons are breeding grounds for more than just the mullet. Lagoons come and go with the tides and storms, bannning them from lagoons would not be locking up a stretch of beach permanately from the pros.

[Horse]

I think the first step would be to ban the beach netting from Noosa North to Fraser. Leave this area to the tourists and rec fishos. There would be a better economic outcome to the state as a whole if this took place.
Secondly, these Whales might become an issue. Each Whale is eating around 2,500kg of fish and Krill each day. How do we manage their numbers?

[timddo]

Horse are you saying Australia do scientific research like the japs.

[Horse]

Horse are you saying Australia do scientific research like the japs.

Something has to give. The poulation is growing at over 10% each year. At some point this will be unsustainable. We have essentially removed apex predators such as Great Whites so there is nothing to control population expansion. We may have to look at birth control. Anyone up for fitting an IUD to a Whale?

Back to the topic, I would strongly support a sunset clause being implemented into each SEQ inshore netting licence along with voluntary buybacks

[Boat Hog]

Secondly, these Whales might become an issue. Each Whale is eating around 2,500kg of fish and Krill each day. How do we manage their numbers?

Min length 12 meters, bag limit 2?

Lots of arguement in favour of whale watching tourism, so any form of 'management' is going to have a hard push uphill.

Cheers,

[Crunchy]

Min length 12 meters, bag limit 2?


Cheers,

But only two harpoons per fisher in a yellow zone...

[krocspoon]

Perhaps we are coming at this from the wrong angle. A few interlocked Coles shopping trollies placed every 50 metres or so, would slow the netters down and form an artifical reef that would attract more fish.

Seriously though, I understand that the pro's make a very very marginal living - just look at the ute's they drive and the price of Mullet. I also understand that most of them receive some form of welfare, in addition to their small fishing income.

If we are effectively paying them to fish, as taxpayers - would it not lead to a better overall outcome to pay them not to fish? i.e buy the few remaining licenses back.

i am a local pro never had any other job or passion other than catching fish to support the huge non fishing public ,more people buy fish than catch it,as for his ute i would prefer my mullet delivered out of the back of a lexus.

[rando]

I have heard that the major value in mullet is the export dollars for roe & smelt. I do not see much mullet in the supermarkets , nor do i see it very regularly on the menu of fish and chips shops. So where does it all go,, just in this post alone there are reports of many tons of fish taken from the one location.
I do not believe the ' supplying the none fishing public" line,,, at least not for beach hauled species.
I have no doubt that it is an enterprise that is commercially viable, but , i do not buy the altruism angle.because I see no evidence of mullet as an important menu item for the average consumer.

[Fallen angel]

I have heard that the major value in mullet is the export dollars for roe & smelt. I do not see much mullet in the supermarkets , nor do i see it very regularly on the menu of fish and chips shops. So where does it all go,, just in this post alone there are reports of many tons of fish taken from the one location.
I do not believe the ' supplying the none fishing public" line,,, at least not for beach hauled species.
I have no doubt that it is an enterprise that is commercially viable, but , i do not buy the altruism angle.because I see no evidence of mullet as an important menu item for the average consumer.

You are right that the majority of the value is in the row, the mullet itself goes to a number of places fresh fillet supplies, bait shops, crab bait (quite a large amount does) and i dare say that some will goes to pet food supplies.

[Fallen angel]

Thanks Slider for constructive comments. I can tell you have put some thought into them and I agree with a quite a few of them

I try very hard to stay on the fence and to be unbiased.

My ultimate aim is have a very profitable and sustainable fishery in the commercial sector, there are numerous reasons why but the main one is that if you have both then fishery is healthy.

Your comment
"In this instance of a proposed buy out of K8 licences which are zoned, and N1 licence holders who can demonstrate a history in the region, it is intended that the licence owner would have their licence, boat and all gear bought by gov with a 5 to 10 year 'no netting' clause associated to prevent shifting fishing pressure."
You mention that it is intended I may PM you about this one as I am curious of where the information came from. How ever I would like to add to this comment as the NO NETTING needs to go a little further it should be no fishing. This may sound a little harsh and I will explain why and what needs to be done to achieve this.

If you buy the endorsement out as this is what they are going to be targeting (it will be cheaper) you only take the netting component out, this then leaves the rest of the license to continue to operate and then place further pressure on another fishery. This was shown to be the case when the trawler buy back happened, a lot of people no longer had a licence to going trawling but they had a license to go line fishing and crabbing. An example of this is again the hinchbrook area where the channel went from 5-6 crabbers to almost 25-30 you could say that there were some tensions there. This has another affect that there then becomes an over supply to market and the price drops not good for anyone. The crabbers that had another licence eg netting or line fishing then went and did this and so on and so on. You can see the flow on affect. So when the government decides to buy back the endorsements they need to seriously consider this otherwise it will be a waste of time.

With regards to the hinchbrook there were many theories put out there as to why but here are some my favorites.

More amateurs
More Boats = more noise
Better infrastructure

The locals had far more than that.

With regards to Karumba the boats that ventured further away caught better fish and more of them. One must realize the pressure that is placed on Karumba with regards to the amateur fishery. With regards to your questions about what the geographical features are of Karumba are there is not much difference between the local area around Karumba and the other areas that people travel to up there. But the gulf is a special place if you ever go there you will understand what I mean as it is a Massive fishery and has a huge system of feeder tributaries.

I was using both Karumba and the Hinchinbrook in frustration to the BAN ALL NETS logic.

To the question as to nets don't discriminate, yes some do not but you can build nets that target a species or a certain size fish. When I was targeting grey Mackerel we changed the size, breaking strain and the way the net was hung so that one we did not catch as many sharks or dugongs and we only wanted to target a certain size fish for the market that we were targeting. In Barra fishery i was not interested in catching fish over a certain size and i was not interested in undersize fish at all (nothing for next year) so we built or nets accordingly. The barra fishery in the gulf banded large mesh nets and also bought in a minimum size net to, and they increased the size of fish they were allowed to target. The fishery hurt for about two years with regards to catches but they are far better off for it now.

I like the fact that you mentioned a REC license (fully supportive of it) there are a number of reasons that it would work and there are advantages to having one.

1. The of the money should and could be used for buying back licences
2. It will provide information to the government about how many do actually fish, this is one of the biggest down falls when it comes to making decisions. The pros have records and information on their catch and you have to guess what the amateur fishery is doing.

There is a lot other information that could be gathered voluntarily too.

I once sat and had input into a lot of MAC's ZAC's and advisory groups and the frustrating part is this, the greens have good representation and then commercial had good representation (never enough seats at the table though) but when it came to the amateur side you have a group that claims to be the peak group advising on your behalf. What amazes me is that this group claimed to represent every amateur in Queensland but when you talk to the people that represent they wanted nothing to do with them apart from their members. Which they do not have that many of. Anyway i am getting away from the point that I want to make.
If fishing clubs of Queensland and any other club that claims to represent amateurs could get off their behind they could make a difference, they could make a difference. Any one in Queensland can buy a licence or an endorsement and hand it back into the government, this is very proactive way of going about complaining. I for one even though I sit on the fence would join that club or organisation and pay my money as i would know where it is going.

Again Slider thanks for your balanced view and thoughts.

Oh and my parting shot at that peak group is that I doubt that they could raise enough money themselves to hold an opening of a garage door. If anyone one wants to counter that i would like to see official numbers not affiliated numbers. Could not let the opportunity go pass

[Slider]

I can throw up another suggestion as to why the Hinchinbrook Channel fired for amateurs after the netting closure Fallen Angel - for interests sake. Have been reading about antipredator responses in fish, and it seems that once predation pressure has been removed from a species, that species will become less wary and reduce their antipredator vigilance, feed more aggressively and have more time and energy for reproduction. Therefore, the fish in the channel, on learning that their net predator was no longer active, reduced their antipredator vigilance, fed aggressively, bred up and became vulnerable to what was probably an increased amount of recreational fishing gear. The recreational fishing gear began to cause mass mortalities which reduced populations again and caused the fish to adopt increased antipredator responses to recreational fishing gear and become more wary generally. Either that or illegal netting started to fill the void vacated by the pros.

The interesting bit about this is - if recreational fishing havens are to be implemented anywhere with the intention of rejuvenating fish stocks, then the recreational fishing pressure must be below levels that negate the benefits of implementation. This would particularly be the case in the first 3 or 4 years of a rfh in order for fish populations to rebuild at as close to maximum potential as possible. Therefore bag and size limits should be stricter within rfh than elsewhere because the fish should be easier to catch within the rfh and cumulatively will dampen the benefits of the rfh.

[bondy99]

You are right that the majority of the value is in the row, the mullet itself goes to a number of places fresh fillet supplies, bait shops, crab bait (quite a large amount does) and i dare say that some will goes to pet food supplies.

Rando, thats what I was getting at earlier but no, Fallen Angel and his supporters gave me a hard time and yet he says you are correct!!

Fallen Angel , please explain why this is so.