Classifieds

Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 195
  1. #46
    Ausfish Platinum Member bigjimg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Moorooka, Brisbane.

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by MudRiverDan View Post
    I think they could use those big ponds out the end of the Port of Brisbane as a fish farm!

    They could give people jobs and make a profit from the unused ponds.
    Then when they reclaim some space for the port they can move the ponds further out.

    Not only that but it is a Port!
    They have already proven to hold and keep snapper.

    I mean countries like Vietnam and Thailand use every thing they got, if a farmer has a dam he grows fish and catches frogs, if he has yard space he grows mushrooms in straw and sells them.

    Do a google on it and you will see the huge salt dams they have.



    Dan
    Keep dreaming Dan.....That is never going to happen.Jim
    Haines Signature "FinaLeigh" 580F 135 Optimax
    CH 81 & 72 VHF

  2. #47

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    To cut a long story short, each year there are plenty of blokes who scream and shout bloody murder during mullet season but everytime I've been to a community forum regarding Pro vs Amateur vs Charter there seems to be very few who lift their heads out of their behinds and have a proper go at making a change.

  3. #48

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Couple of comments -

    The netters that are mentioned as searching at night after a recent previous haul are most likely looking for schools of mullet that are expected to exit the Tweed to spawn. These mullet would be unaware of the previous haul due to their still being in the river when it occurred and must exit to spawn irrespective. The pros know the mullet are coming and their job is to find out them once they exit. This aspect is critical to the viability of the mullet fishers, otherwise they would constantly be spooking their target species and viability would be out the window.

    Because mullet have been netted for 100 years and are still being netted does not mean that they are a sustainable resource under the current fishing arrangements. The north east atlantic cod was netted for hundreds of years before their population suddenly and unexpectedly collapsed in the 1990s putting tens of thousands of people out of work - for example.

    There has been significant improvements in technology and efficiencies in the ocean haul sector over the last 100 years. It is accepted that between 2 - 4% 'effort creep' should be applied to any fishery assessment. I have applied 3% in the attached graphs pertaining to mullet yields and effort.

    The attached sample graphs are of commercial catch data of mullet and correlated to tailor, spotted & spanish mackerel data and including some in relation to tern data. Is some interesting trends and particularly relating to the months in which different species are taken (or not taken). The graphs also raise questions as to the assumed sustainability of mullet netting - under the current arrangements.

    Lindsay
    .
    Attached Files Attached Files

  4. #49

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    One last thing from me....As a rec fisher who loves his fishing i cant understand on a rec fishing forum there are people that agree that mullet beach hauling is fine.. makes me wonder if you even fish at all or just sit at the computer and type stuff?
    Thats it from me.

  5. #50

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Well... this is how it goes, sometimes it needs a view from the "other side" to make the facts evident, anyone can post a rant about a topic without any factual basis at all, I have posted lots of times taking an apposing view to many topics, even though I didn't 100% support the pro/rec/charter/method.... etc any debates need input from all parties concerned a one eyed rant will get no one anywhere, it might make you feel better, but it wont change a thing, so, lets look at what you just posted, you think Mullet fishing should be banned, am I correct? why exaclty do you think this should be the case? because you haven't caught a Mullet for years? you just don't like pros? you think they are raping the beach? or would you prefer to just "rant" from your computer without any constructive thoughts or possibilities at all?

  6. #51

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Noelm, Firstly check where my last post was located, straight after Sliders post and attachment. Secondly check where im located.. thats right the gold coast where this has just happened. All the constructive talk in the world cant take away the fact that this practice is horrible to see, if you disagree or want to put up "their" side of the argument well that's your prerogative mate. The thread as a whole is a rant...
    You would sing a different tune if this happened to your favourite fishing spot.. I would put my house on it.

  7. #52

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    happens all the time, Mullet hauling is a big resource down my way, been going on for well.... forever, is it right? is it wrong? dont know for 100% sure, but considering the effort in relation to the return, and catch rates, it APPEARS to be doing OK, we have a big fishery for Slimies and Yellowtail, there is 3 boats that get literally tonnes a day, all year round (not just a season) and there is still as many Slimies around as there ever was, so whats the answer? do we just ban everything we don't like? much like the greens want to ban ALL fishing (including recs) do you think that is a good idea? the Greens don't like us barbarians torturing fish, so they have a valid case to ban us all, dont you think? same thing yes/no

  8. #53

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    OH, and you just lost your house! Mullet fishing is big time in my fishing area.

  9. #54

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    In my experience all the fish I have targeted to fish in my local estuary have been in greater numbers when following the mullet schools in winter. When the netter's hit the mullet and the numbers drop as they have steadily over the last 50 or more years the catches of other fish also drop off. So in my eyes the netting of mullet etc directly effects the numbers of fish in general. I wish this practice was slashed. I wouldn't mind if the price of mullet went up as I would rather the other species anyway and there would be plenty of mullet around to through the cast net over.
    Probably not much use winging anyway as those involved couldn't give a ---- what I say here about it so things won't change until there are none left to catch.
    The other issue is the destruction of habitat which has been going on unchallenged for a long time.

  10. #55

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    that's the problem, we ALL whinge and whine and carry on about goings on, but do jack sh!t about it, that's were I am leading, to get anything at all changed, it needs to be an informed and united front, single whingers on a forum will do nothing at all, except incite debate, which to my way of thinking is a very good thing.

  11. #56

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    So.. you get down to the beach and target Jew in the mullet run in shellharbour Noel?
    I lived on the south coast for 27 years (Narooma) I wasnt saying that the fishery isn't down there also mate.. i used to target the kings off the rock ledges of Malua bay, Jervis bay and Mystery bay in the mullet run.. We used to also target northern blues as well. localised netting is just horrid it stuffs the local fishery up for sure.. My house is safe.
    Remember the massive trawler that almost set up permanent shop at Eden targeting slimies.. devastating stuff.
    Did you ever get to fish the Bermi yellowfin tournament? The fish just weren't there in any numbers for years.. why? the bait wasn't either.. not from scientific experience but from actually being out there and seeing it.
    Have a drive down down the road to Coila lake (Tuross) and see if you can get a few bream out of there.. It just had hundreds and hundreds of boxes pulled out of it..
    I still stand by my rant.. Beach hauling is rubbish.

    You can sit on the fence Noel..Iim not like that with stuff so obvious..

  12. #57

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by lbger View Post
    So.. you get down to the beach and target Jew in the mullet run in shellharbour Noel?
    I lived on the south coast for 27 years (Narooma) I wasnt saying that the fishery isn't down there also mate.. i used to target the kings off the rock ledges of Malua bay, Jervis bay and Mystery bay in the mullet run.. We used to also target northern blues as well. localised netting is just horrid it stuffs the local fishery up for sure.. My house is safe.
    Remember the massive trawler that almost set up permanent shop at Eden targeting slimies.. devastating stuff.
    Did you ever get to fish the Bermi yellowfin tournament? The fish just weren't there in any numbers for years.. why? the bait wasn't either.. not from scientific experience but from actually being out there and seeing it.
    Have a drive down down the road to Coila lake (Tuross) and see if you can get a few bream out of there.. It just had hundreds and hundreds of boxes pulled out of it..
    I still stand by my rant.. Beach hauling is rubbish.

    You can sit on the fence Noel..Iim not like that with stuff so obvious..
    maybe when you win the powerball lottery you could buy all the offending licenses off the pro's and the everything will be honky dory!

  13. #58

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    I would like to see those graphs collated with data from the Cabarita Greenback comp, or any other comp similar.

    Graph mostly shows usual stuff, nothing new,monthly data - mullet Tailor June,July,, etc etc

    However..

    Yearly data shows bad year nearly almost follows a good one which might indicate offspring to mature adult fish had been inhibited by bulk net of spawning adult the previous year.
    Which would also be nothing new.
    Though to gain and equilibrium between rec fisher, pro and sustainability, IMO the Government would have to inject some compensatory money until it's reached.

    BTW graphs can be very deceptive especially multiple graphs on multiple scales.

    Dan


  14. #59

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Slider the spotlighting on the particular night i was talking about occured far further south than the tweed but i did observe haulers on the nearest beach to it 2 days previuos to this! Pro's search for mullet day and night when they are active and that is 100 percent true. It most definately affects other fish habits and that is 100 percent true. This is only from my experieience and i have no agenda apart from wanting to catch larger fish from the beach. Ben

  15. #60

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    No worries Blooey. Spotlighting for mullet is a common practise and not helpful for fishers looking for anything other than mullet. I'd be more worried about the net though.

    Dan, there's nothing deceptive or usual about these graphs if you know how to interpret them - they show the data and in ways I certainly haven't seen before. The data shows that tailor in particular, but the other species also, are rarely taken by net during June and July which are the big mullet months and when by far the highest concentration of netters are present. Now why would this be the case when tailor have traditionally arrived in this region on their spawning migration during May or as early as late April?

    The argument can be made that the pros are focused on mullet during June and July with nets not suitable for tailor and there is some truth in this. However, the resident tern data and the known link between these terns and tailor, shows that the tailor are not present to be netted in June or July. And I'm doubtful that if there were schools of tailor available in June or July that the pros would repeatedly drive straight past them anyway. They manage to find time to net dart when opportunity presents and have always been prepared, and still do throw the tailor nets in the boat during the mullet season - especially in W34 fishery grid.

    What this means is that the observation of disappearing fish species that recs target after the first large haul of mullet in June each year, is now statistically replicated in the graphs. The observed disappearance of crested terns (and gannets) after the first haul of mullet in June each year because they have to follow the tailor that have been spooked by the mullet nets, is now statistically replicated in the graphs. If I could access better quality data, then I could show in graphs each mullet haul and how nothing other than mullet is taken by net in the same fishery grid in the weeks following that haul. Can do so to some degree with the data I have, but this can be fine tuned enormously. Of course, if the nets aren't finding anything after each haul, then anglers certainly aren't going to either and that is what has been observed all around the world for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

    Re mackerel - I have observed any number of times a mullet net in June spooking nearshore surface feeding mackerels and tunas. The mackerels and tunas disappear immediately - before the net has hit the beach - and generally we don't see them again until Dec/Jan/Feb. Based on these observations and the attached graphs, mullet nets may well be bringing the mackerel and tuna seasons to a premature end in SEQ and subsequently the migratory terns which are dependent on the mackerels and tunas fly prematurely to northern Asia - whether fattened up for the flight or otherwise. The graphs definitely show that there is zero overlap of mullet and mackerel/migratory terns. Some would argue that this is due to their seasons having never overlapped - but we don't know that because mullet and mackerel netting has been going on longer than any of our memories. I have certainly seen mackerel and tuna in June/July in this region and who's to say they wouldn't be far more common if not for the mullet nets. Irrespective, there are issues here that are potentially very serious for mackerel sustainability whilst netting of school and grey mackerel and other mackerel bycatch is permitted.

    As to mullet - the graphs clearly show that the amount of effort required to catch a reducing quantity of mullet in 2 of the 3 grids assessed, continues to increase. The daily average catch per licence owner (boat) is clearly reducing in each grid which is very troubling for the fishery and the fishers and is quite obviously unsustainable.

    What's not factored into the graphs is that when there is more effort involved in the actual catching of fish, then there must be more effort involved in locating the fish in the first place - which is never logged by K8 fishers though is supposed to be. This aspect should add more % to the 'effort' charted in the graphs.

    Fishery managers everywhere are well aware of effort creep and the need to reduce fishing pressure to compensate in order for sustainability to be maintained. This doesn't seem to be considered by our fishery managers though when it comes to inshore netting and this will have to change if sustainability of all our inshore species is to be maintained.

    An example of effort creep in the ocean haul sector is the 'teaming up' by licence holders which is a permitted activity. Where before teaming up occurred around 2000 in this region, a single netter with a single net might be able to take perhaps 6 or 7 tonnes of a 40 tonne school with the other 33 or 34 tonne fleeing and probably not taken at all. Now, 9 netters with 9 nets can take the whole 40 tonnes at a time before the mullet flee and also share searching duties which is an efficiency increase by K8 fishers in the hundreds of percent. The 3% allowed for effort creep in my graphs is almost certainly well below the actual effort creep occurring. From 1988, 3% p.a. effort creep allowance only allows for a total of 69% effort creep by 2011. Then there's nylon nets, spotter planes, 4wd & boat technology increase, improved access to the fishing grounds, polarised sunnies and large trucks and 4wd support vehicles to cart the catch - 3% might allow for these improved efficiencies.

    While I believe that we can continue to net mullet into the future, we can't continue doing so in the way that we have been if we are to not only sustain mullet pops, but each of the other species also. Tailor are in diabolical trouble and I firmly believe that it is the mullet nets contributing to the problem to the greatest degree through alterations to tailor spawning migration behavioural dynamics. There is significant evidence to support this claim.

    Whiting on the other hand seem to be doing just fine and this isn't surprising when their predators are diminishing in number. Mullet are potential benefactors of 'predator release' also. But we need the predators for all sorts of reasons and if we somehow manage to resurrect their numbers, then we'd have to reduce the fishing pressure on whiting and mullet anyway because of the increased natural mortality rates. Unfortunately we'll never resurrect predatory species pops while we're netting mullet and other inshore species in the manner that we are currently, but that's a problem that has the same remedy as required for the other species - strategically located net free regions. It's all about balance, and at this point in time we are nowhere near attaining any sort of balanced approach to fishery management in Queensland.

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