Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 195

Thread: Wrong Wrong Wrong

  1. #151
    Ausfish Silver Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Ah you'd like to talk about the slaughter of Barra in the Gladstone Area. Mate 30 cents a KILO OR JUST THROW THEM IN THE BIN. Why net the god damm things anyway, let them swim away and 'Breed". You would have thought it would have been better for everybody involved to just let them Swim Away. But NO Mr Robinson and his advisers thought otherwise. I"ll tell you straight up i have "ABSOLUTELY NO TIME FOR THE "CAMPBELL WEASLE GOVERNMENT" AND THERE POLICIES IN REGARDS TO ANYTHING TO DO WITH RECREATIONAL FISHING

  2. #152

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    [QUOTE=mattooty; Most of the time when fisherman from other regions or areas go to different locations it's because they've bought a share in that fishery and may only fish it once or twice a year.[/QUOTE]

    Incorrect. An N1 licence owner can fish any eastern state waters other than closed waters described in the Queensland Commercial Fishery Handbook. There are about 150 N1 licences that can pretty well move around as they please.

  3. #153

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Noelm View Post
    I do have an opinion, but I just like to see any thoughts (for and against) put forward, a few pages back someone suggested we need more rec only fishing areas, would he be supportive of more "green zones" that being no one at all can fish there? nope, I reckon not, what it amounts to is, WE think the fish are ours, and ours alone, and any pro should be banned or something, that is simply not the way to go.
    I am supportive of green zones and am not of the belief that recs should have exclusive access to the fish. This is apparent if you read that I believe that mullet netting should take place inside the mouth of estuaries. Also apparent by way of statements regarding commercial fishers becoming more viable as a result of rec only areas and my desire for commercial fishers to be wealthy and having job security for the length of their fishing career.

    If you're going to make assumptions, then it would be adviseable to read what has been written by the person you are assuming thinks in a particular way.

    Dan - yes, I believe that a different management approach should occur in rec only areas. Bag limits should be less, size limits greater, gear restrictions applicable and perhaps a limited number of permits available to fish a given rec only area during a weekly or monthly period.

  4. #154

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Slider View Post
    I am supportive of green zones
    You lost me from that point onwards.

    And I might add, so do the the rec fishers who want more yellow zones, or modified green zones where rec fishing can happen, when that argument is simply on the basis that it gets the rec sector exclusive access at the expense of commercial fishing.

    People need to get it thru their heads that marine park zones are NOT fisheries management tools. What does that mean? It means that these zoning arrangment are not desogned or intended to be means by which fisheries management agencies manage the sustainabiliy of fish species and by which they manage the access of different sectors to the fishery!

    They are purely and simply tools of the greeny politico-scientific sector. And they have carefully designed them to promote divisions between recreational and commercial fishing sectors.

    If you go for the line that says "yes, lets have more yellow zones because commercial fishers are excluded from there", then in fact you have been suckered into exactly what they want us to do.

    The proof of my statement is clear if you think about it for more than a few seconds.

    Which Government Departments are responsible for setting up and managing green zones/marine parks? Its not Fisheries,is it? Its the EPA, National Parks mob, or their current equivalent!

    I cannot recall 1 instance in which a Govt Fisheries manager in this country has said

    "Please let us put in massive marine parks because we need them to help manage pur fisheries".

    Why? Because they don't need them. They already have more than sufficient tools at their disposal under Fisheries Legislation to do their jobs - size and bag limits, closed seasons, reserves, and so on.

    The only situations elsewhere in the world where green zones have helped sustainability are where there is no effective fisheries management process in place.
    Note to self: Don't argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience....

  5. #155

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Can't say I'd go along with much of that Moonlighter and how dare I express that opinion hey? Is merely my personal opinion based on the plethora of scientific studies that exist from around the world that without exception demonstrate an increase in biodiversity, including fish population and individual size, within closed areas and a spillover that commercial and recreational fishers alike happen to take advantage of.
    I have not at any stage pushed my personal opinions in this regard into the public domain until Noelm made assumptions about my attitude to green zones that I wished to refute. You can conclude that I am anti recreational fishing if you like, but Noelm seems to have a rather different accusation to make of my opinion which is at the complete opposite end of the scale. For ease of comprehension, let us just say that I am somewhere in the middle of the scale - at about the balance point.

  6. #156

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Interesting graphs, which show that over the last 10 years increasing or remaining relative flat catches and could then draw a conclusion that the population is stable or growing and fisheries are sustainable. As a person with a stats degree i believe nothing that is stats,,, I could take data and make it tell the opposite by selective and analytical inclusions, the number of data sets that are reared to obtain the story / hypothesis that is being sought can take time to find eg changing time frames as I did to this data set gives a different result.

    Average catches over a 40 year period in a fishing club I was a member showed continual improvements in fish / angler / trip despite continual anecdotal evidence of declining catches
    Ross

    May your lines be as tight as ....

  7. #157

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    You are no doubt more skilled than I am with stats and data Garfish, I only have the ability to graph them as they are. Yields, boats, days fished as supplied by FQ is all that is being shown. Effort and cpue are calculated from that data in accepted manners and which are used in all variety of fisheries. And pre 2000 data has to be considered to provide an historical perspective.
    But then, fisheries isn't necessarily all about statistics either - though for many of the species in this region the stats are poor when effort and cpue data are considered as need to be, with tailor a clear case in point. Yields alone cannot be used as a gauge of fishery health.
    Severe drought from '96 until August 2007 and above average falls each year since is of significant relevance with a view to the next drought which may be imminent and when comparing with pre '96 rainfall, catch and effort data. Teaming up by K8 fishers about 1999/2000 with as many as 9 nets working together makes an enormous difference to overall yields of mullet in particular. Especially when only 1 person at a time is required to do the searching for those 9 licence holders.The increasing number of days fished to achieve yields after 2000 despite this radically improved efficiency tells a story on its own.

    So while you may be able to statistically make the catch data for this region tell a different story, I'm not sure that there would be any point in reading anything in to it if the actual realities of the fishery mean that it's fiction.

    Well documented in recreational fisheries is the significant advancements in fishing power and especially offshore. I hope you built these into your club stats Garfish??

  8. #158

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Slider,

    of interest even the govt research paper into tailor catches also showed increasing catch for club anglers.
    I note that a 3% increase in fishing power pa was applied, implying that fishing power has doubled over the period of your graphs I am assuming they are yours, which is based on what CPI. Mate fisheries aren't getting any worse we are getting lazier as a whole and are believing the good old days existed. Of note the increase in availability of cheap basa has not been mentioned through here as the primary driver of a decrease in commercial catch's which given total seafood consumption pp in Australia began increasing when imported seafood had a increase during the early 2000 specifically in prepared areas. The reduction in catch could be more market driven throu basics if supply and demand
    Ross

    May your lines be as tight as ....

  9. #159

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Slider View Post
    Can't say I'd go along with much of that Moonlighter and how dare I express that opinion hey? Is merely my personal opinion based on the plethora of scientific studies that exist from around the world that without exception demonstrate an increase in biodiversity, including fish population and individual size, within closed areas and a spillover that commercial and recreational fishers alike happen to take advantage of.
    I have not at any stage pushed my personal opinions in this regard into the public domain until Noelm made assumptions about my attitude to green zones that I wished to refute. You can conclude that I am anti recreational fishing if you like, but Noelm seems to have a rather different accusation to make of my opinion which is at the complete opposite end of the scale. For ease of comprehension, let us just say that I am somewhere in the middle of the scale - at about the balance point.
    You can espress whatever opinion you like, and so can I. You've now shown your colours by supporting green zones. That just about says it all as far as I'm concerned.

    I just happen to disagree with you. And i know enough about the dodgy science behind them to dare to question them and people who seem to want to promote them for purposes for which they were never intended.

    I saw the almost religous ferver of the EPA greenies who latched onto the barest shred of evidence to support their case, and how they refused to acknowledge that before contemplating additional fishing restrictions, they first needed to consider and evaluate the current fisheries management regime that was in place.

    But no, their attitude was fixed: we need 30% green zones everywhere. Local fisheries management regimes dont count.

    All the studies around the world demonstrate increased biodiversity, do they? Do any of them demonstrate fisheries benifits in countries like Australia where we have active and internationally well regarded fisheries management regimes? No, they dont. Show me some if you disagree.

    As to proven biodiversity benefits, well I had a really close read of the scientific paper by one Sue Pillans upon which most of the greeny EPA scientists hung their hats and used as "proof of green zones producing increased biodiversity" in the Bay.

    I'm not a marine bioligist, but I do have a degree and I do understand statistics, having worked with them to measure business performance for around 20 years.

    After reading said paper, i formed the conclusion that the data gathered and presented did not support the conclusions drawn. There was just not enough of a difference in the data to be statistically significant, in my opinion. In laymans terms that means that the difference between before green zones and after wasnt enough to draw any conclusions from.

    So i rang my mate who is a marine bioligist and fisheries expert and an Associate Professor in this field, no less, and told him what I thought. His reply was "I wondered if you would pick that up, and yes, you are exactly right".

    As to the much vaunted "spillover effect", show me the evidence that backs your statements. Then we will have a look at the methodology they used, and subject it to some critical review, and we will see where that leaves us, eh? Ive read quite a few of those papers and they are singularly unconvincing. I have also seen credible reseach on the GBR on this spillover effect, where the spliiover effect was so microscopically small it was of no significance at all.

    For there to be a net fisheries benefit, it means that more fish were able to be caught after implementing the new rules than before, you do understand that, don't you?

    The characteristics of those people I dealt with on the green side in the Bay rezoning were, shall we say, interesting. They didn't like to be questioned, they didn't like it when our senior fisheries scientists and even educated rec fishers like me caught them out telling porkies including to the minister and others, and they didn't like it when funamental flaws in their arguments and proposals were pointed out. And they got personal in their attacks on us in return.

    Hope you're not heading the same way, Slider.
    Note to self: Don't argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience....

  10. #160

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Can't help thinking there's a couple blokes here actually on the same page....
    As for tailor numbers increasing?? Not around these particular parts. Decline in number and size over the last 30 years is irrefutable, haven't seen a decent amount of choppers for at least a decade. I'd reckon that would stand for a lot of other areas too, not just where I happen to live.....

  11. #161

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Strange how there's plenty of reports (evidence?) of Australian Salmon and Kingfish numbers increasing due to legislated changes in Commercial fishing practices. Yet I haven't' seen any reports on how legislated changes to Recreational fishing practices (i.e. Marine Park green zones, bag and size limits) have directly resulted in increased fish numbers?

    FWIW, I agree with 'green zones' and protected areas in the Marine Environment much the same way as National Parks. But only, that's ONLY, where such areas are identified as being of unique importance etc by Scientific Means. The lock em out at all costs mentality is wrong, wrong, wrong.

    I've had a few beers and that's only my opinion,

    Cheers,
    Jim

  12. #162

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    I am pretty confident Moonlighter that I could debate that issue with a great deal of supporting evidence and simple logic. However, I'm not prepared to and never have been. I support the use of green zones as a conservation tool based on the findings of a bundle of scientists around the world who have had their work peer reviewed already. Sorry if that isn't satisfactory for you but that is my opinion and prerogative.

    I'd be interested Garfish as to when the gov research into club tailor catches was conducted? And also, as to your club's tailor catches, whether they were land based or offshore?
    3%p.a. effort creep is fairly standard, but even if I didn't apply any effort creep, the data still shows increasing effort (days fished) and reducing cpue for the majority of species in the 3 grids assessed. That increasing effort, I would think, would dispel the theory that market forces are reducing catch rates.

    I kind of can't really swallow the fishing is getting better and fishers getting lazier scenario. Way more anglers out there more than makes up for any alleged individual laziness - not to mention huge increases in fishing power. But it's all a bit of a generalisation to lump the entire state's fishing into one basket. There are certainly some areas doing better than others and the chances are that fishing pressure would be a particularly significant factor as to why.

  13. #163

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    back to the op there is nothing wrong with that. Went for a walk along a pier last weekend and what the "rec" anglers were doing was wrong wrong wrong I spoke to some of them about the undersized fish they were keeping and was told to mind my own business by the parents
    Which is worse legal netting activity by a licensed pro or illegal fish taking by anyone whether rec or pro I know the latter specifically when done by pros is far worse as is the rec anglers who sell catch
    Ross

    May your lines be as tight as ....

  14. #164

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    It's a problem no doubt - just been walking along the beach here at Teewah and saw a guy keeping a near see through dart. However, part of the problem is that legal fish are so thin on the ground that people feel that they have to keep something for their hard earnt they've spent to go fishing and unless there's the possibility of being busted, then "who cares". Like the tailor fishos at Fraser who insist that they have to take home as many tailor as possible to justify the expense of the holiday. Was appalling the number and size of fish being kept there this year. As you say, it's wrong.
    Daryl McPhee claims in one of his papers that 50% of fish kept by rec anglers are illegal. I'd say that's a gross overestimate but terrific fodder for the anti angler brigade nevertheless.

    All of which makes a mockery of bag limits that are or aren't in place for surf species. I haven't heard of anyone going close to any of the limits in recent years around here or from any Sunny Coast beaches for that matter.
    And in 40 + years of fishing this beach, I've been inspected by Fisheries officers twice and on both occasions while conditions were such that nobody else was even on the beach let alone fishing. I have my thoughts on why only when conditions are foul, but I forget - FQ are on top of things and I shouldn't worry about any of these things.

  15. #165

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Some more tailor graphs attached - this time there is no effort creep and just the 'days fished' compared to yields and cpue. Cpue is calculated by dividing the annual yield by the days fished which is divided by the number of boats/licences to give an average daily yield per boat. As can be seen in the first graph - cpue for each grid is falling steadily and particularly after about 2000 which is when recs started to notice the decline also.

    It should be noted that the days fished is only the days when fish are actually caught and logged by fishers. The days spent searching for fish are never included. What this means is that any increase in effort to find fish is never included and when cpue and yields are decreasing then it is a reasonable assumption to make that there is increasing effort involved in finding fish. However, just the reducing cpue and the logged days fished means that schools are getting smaller and/or there is less of them.
    I've watched the local pro who would be responsible for the majority of tailor taken off this beach drive up and down the beach, day after day over the last couple of years without wetting a net, but apparently that's not relevant and certainly isn't considered by the people telling us that this tailor fishery is sustainable. He then might find 3 tonne of tailor (for instance) and that is a single days fishing when there might have been a dozen days when he didn't find anything. So therefore, days fished isn't really reflective of actual effort at all and only reflects the successful days fished. What a debacle!

    I've added boats into the W32 graph to provide some perspective of actual effort.

    W32 - northern Fraser Is.
    W34 - southern Fraser and northern Cooloola (Teewah & Rainbow Beaches)
    W35 - southern Cooloola (Teewah Beach - south of Cherry Venture)
    Attached Files Attached Files

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Join us