Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 195
  1. #61
    Ausfish Silver Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Well your right about the Netters, they keep tabs on the Mullet "Day and Night". Soon as opportunity arises they pounce. Slider mentions depending on the size of the School the Netters will "Combine for a Total Clean Out" of the school which is true. Quite a common occurrence from Noosa River to Inskip Point and any other locations for that matter. I for one have absolutley no time for this type of practice, and slowly but surely the numbers and average size are actually dwinderling MMM... i wonder why.
    You keep taking 10,20,50 Tonne of Fish from different locations, which are in Prime Breeding Condition (Refer Thread 15/07/2012.) what would you think is going to happen over time. Oh and those Trawlers you see off the Beach are"nt interested in that Species. But will communicate with the Beach Netters if they see something. I know we all need to make a quid, but fair dinkum if you think this type of practice is viable your a (Dead Set Half Wit) Oh and if you don"t appreciate that comment mmm... sorry.

  2. #62

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Unfortunately, as we probably mostly know, so much is based on politics, rather than science.....

  3. #63

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Slider --

    Interesting that Terns are associated with Tailor, and of course to many Tailor fisherman a flock of Gulls or Terns is the best way to spot a feeding school.

    It's interesting because yesterday I was at Boggy Creek Mouth-Brisbane River, and the Terns were there (The black capped ones with the pointed beak).
    A flock of them flew out in the water in front of me and some even did a few sky dives into the water (obviously feeding).

    I hooked two Tailor about 45cm and 50cm in that short time and three more in the following hour.

    So as I watched the flock hit the air and started to make a lot of noise and started feeding, it of course became apparent to me that they were feeding off the same fish as the Tailor.

    What these bait fish were?.. I never really got a look, but did cast net some Herring and mullet earlier, so assumed it was herring and mullet they were after but i was not 100% sure as there are always herring and mullet around without Tailor and Terns, so it could have just as easily been another type of bait fish.

    Though it became obvious to me that the Terns need the Tailor to increase their hunt, I again am not sure how they do this but I do know that some birds benefit from the fish being rounded up by bigger fish, and distressed so that they become easy pickings from the sky, and of course injured fish and other fish pieces not eaten by the bigger fish become a meal for the birds.

    So really without the bait fish then you will not get this symbiotic interaction.
    I guess the same could be said if there was no Tailor?


    Dan


  4. #64

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Those black headed Terns (Hooded Tern) usually only eat very small bait fish or scraps, chances are there was tiny Whitebait sized "stuff" that the Tailor were feedng on, and the Terns were just picking up the scraps.

  5. #65

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Find the birds working and you've found the fish - we all know that.

    They could just as easily be crested or common terns Noel, but it doesn't matter as the point is that terns of all variety (some more than others) are heavily reliant on predatory fish species such as tailor, mackerels, tunas, queenfish, large dart, trevs etc as well as dolphins to herd the baitfish to the water's surface. No predatory fish, then the bait stays deep where the seabirds can't get them.
    We know that crested terns (resident) in particular are heavily reliant on tailor, trevs, dart and aus salmon and migratory terns ( common, little and white winged) are heavily reliant on the mackerels and tunas. It is known that each seabird species has a preference for feeding over a particular type of predatory fish species or dolphin.

    Therefore, if the tailor, dart, trevs, salmon and mackerels and tunas are being spooked by mullet nets as I would say is definitely the case and altering migrations away from the coast or areas of high food value or traditional roosting grounds, then shore based terns (as they all are) need to fly further each fishing trip to find a feed. Not only do they need to fly further, they can't rest on a nearby beach in between fishing trips and have multiple trips per day which is of particular value for feeding chicks. Compounding this is the low populations levels of tailor and dart and possibly/probably mackerels, some tunas, trevs etc which requires the terns to spend more time searching for food.

    Note: Little terns - which are listed on Qld's endangered list of species - no longer nest in Queenland, but used to. Nobody knows why they don't anymore. I'd hazard a guess.
    Each of the migratories are protected by international treaties which Australia has signed and any activity that compromise the sustainability of their populations is required to be addressed. Bet we don't, but maybe we could allow shooting groups into national parks where they inhabit for a bit of good healthy fun for the tourists.

    So apart from creating all sorts of havoc for fish species such as tailor, dart, trevs and bream along with mackerels, tunas, threadfin, barra, - any species netted inshore - and making inshore angling a great deal less productive, mullet netting is having an indirect and negative impact (a remote predatory or non - consumptive effect) on tern populations as well as australasian gannets.

    Seagulls are just scavengers and their population is going through the roof.

  6. #66

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Alot of things you say make a huge amount of sense Slider, but then you drop strange insinuations like "but maybe we could allow shooting groups into national parks where they inhabit for a bit of good healthy fun for the tourists." that completely blows your credibility with myself. Why would the destruction of feral animals by gunfire, be worse than a feral's continued existence in said National Park?
    Having a Masters Degree in Enviro-science, I read most of what you preach as heresay and assumptions, due to the huge amount of emotive language and stabs in the dark at things like hazarding guesses at fish populations with no evidence or lumping all of the marine worlds problems (Little Terns nesting sites) in with your own agenda.
    I used to read your posts wide eyed and gripped when you used scientific evidence to back up your speculations but you've moved away from it, allowing yourself a bit of freedom with your post content.

  7. #67

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Yes Mattooty he also side stepped the bait-fish question.
    I am yet to be convinced that "spooking" is going to "spook" schools from food.
    Having trolled Sydney harbour in my younger days for Tailor, and seeing the amount of activity within the harbour at the time, IMO Tailor do not seem like a fish that will be "spooked" when there is a good feed to be had.
    As for the National parks shooters yes well thats another story, yet from what I have seen the guys have good scopes and would not shoot anyone having a bushwalk.
    I believe it is regulated to a time of park closure to the public, or was deemed to be.

    Dan


  8. #68

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Hunting in National Parks is a whole seperate debate. A really good one mind you (and yes I'm an avid hunter), but not relevant to the discussion at hand.....
    I just like to see a bit of evidence to support a theory, even if it is only a personal theory. You know, as does the rest of the scientific community. Especially in an instance such as this, it needs to be undertaken by a non-biased researcher.

  9. #69

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Didn't know I was side stepping a question it looked like you were asking yourself Dan, but they may have been anchovy, sardine, gar, herring, poddies - couldn't say and it's not important. The important bit is the reliance that the terns have on the tailor for whatever baitfish they were.
    Tailor are a species that spooks readily as any experienced slug thrower would know. They will leave food in an instant if they believe there is sufficient threat - and nets are quite obviously the largest threat that can present. Like all animals, fish assess risk and weigh up the risks of feeding while a potential predator is nearby against fleeing and missing the feed. Any animal that doesn't function in this way becomes extinct. Is a mountain of research in this field and particularly in relation to growth rates of bold fish that take greater risks and grow fast but have a high natural or fishing mortality rate.

    My apologies Mattooty if I've used a poor example of how the general attitude of this government to conservation seems a bit .... well, non - existent. I would have preferred to use the example of reopening a closed region of the Burnett to netting but it didn't really fit the circumstance. I accept what you're saying re feral animals - providing that is the only shooting going on in our national parks.
    I have provided evidence for my argument re mullet netting with graphs of commercial catch data in my region of Cooloola/Fraser and correlations with other species and terns and a general explanation of those scenarios. I can provide research papers for the link between pred fish and seabirds if required. I can provide endless evidence of antipredator responses adopted by fish and the alarm cues that trigger these responses. I can provide endless evidence of altered growth rates in harvested species such as the one that tailor have undergone and the reasons why. I can provide further graphs of catch data of other inshore species in my region and all the scenarios that present in those graphs. I could write about our commercial management practices and how they encourage a 'race to fish' which is well known to unexpectedly collapse fisheries and I can put forward theories on why little terns no longer nest in Qld that are as good and likely as any other proffered to date - perhaps better given that I have evidence to support mine. Whatever aspect you would like me to provide evidence for, I can do it. But it all takes time and effort and why is it that I should be required to produce all this evidence when FQ merely have to state that "the fishery is sustainable" and we should then be satisfied with that when experienced and highly skilled anglers all along our coastline are adamant that their individual fisheries are depleted to unacceptable levels. The K8 netters agree with me that this particular fishery is collapsing - they're doing it tough and prospects for their future are grim. The catch data reflects all of our concerns but the same catch data viewed by someone at FQ seems to be all good.

    Happy to stick to facts and figures. More than happy to support my arguments with evidence. But not prepared to write a thesis here which would be required to lay all the facts and figures out. Perhaps you guys can find fault with the theory - give me some reasons why the things I'm saying are happening, can't happen and I'll provide the evidence as to why they can.

    Also - don't misunderstand my intentions. I want our commercial fishery to be flourishing with local fish being supplied to local and export markets by wealthy fishermen who can fish for the term of his working life with security that the fish will still be there when he retires.

  10. #70

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Some graphs of commercial tailor data - Cooloola & Fraser.

    W32 - northern Fraser
    W34 - southern Fraser & northern Cooloola
    W35 - southern Cooloola
    Attached Files Attached Files

  11. #71

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    I am at a loss with my jaw hitting the ground...

    So am i understanding properly? You may have to speak/type slowly.. Is there anyone on here as part of the discussion that thinks that beach hauling is ok?? Please put your hands up... All i hear is people saying how rubbish it is.. then there are the "others" the people that are fueling debate and wanting evidence that its not so bad.. Do you even fish?? Why are you on this site?? I don't have a degree in environmental science nor can i put up graphs to support my post, I abide by common sense and practical experience not classroom experience.
    We should be discussing how we can put a stop to it. Those who know how, should suggest ways we can, not feel the constant need to defend themselves.
    dont knock on deaths door... ring the doorbell and run... death hates that!!

  12. #72

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Here's what the government has to say about threats to (and recovery of) the little tern.

    Threatening processes
    Threats known to affect little terns include both natural and human related factors. As little terns nest near the high tide line, occasionally their nests are inundated by king tides. Nests can also be flooded by freshwater run-off following very heavy rain events (depending on the area where the nests are located). Little tern nests may fail as a result of strong wind which can blow loose sand and cover either eggs or small chicks. Other factors affecting little tern reproduction include predation of eggs and chicks. Natural predators include silver gulls, gull-billed terns and torresian crows. Introduced predators known to have an impact on terns include red foxes, wild dogs, feral cats and black rats.
    The recreational activities of people in coastal areas can affect little tern breeding success. These activities include driving on beaches, trail bike riding or walking through colonies. These activities can disturb the terns or crush eggs and chicks. Loss of suitable nesting habitat occurs because of coastal development. Little terns are potentially susceptible to pesticides and contamination of estuaries by oil spills and heavy metals.
    Recovery actions

    • Many major breeding sites in Queensland still need to be identified or verified.
    • Feral animals, including cats and foxes, need to be controlled at known sites. If you own a dog, avoid walking your dog at sites that are important breeding sites for the little tern.
    • Education (including signage) at known sites is essential so that visitors are made aware of the impacts of their activities. Drivers of vehicles on beaches are requested to stay clear of nesting areas. If you own a four-wheel drive, reconsider your need to drive on the beach.
    • Local bird groups can become involved in protecting or maintaining important sites and monitoring bird numbers.
    • Important sites that are indentified need to be protected from intense development pressures.

  13. #73

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by nathank View Post
    I am at a loss with my jaw hitting the ground...

    So am i understanding properly? You may have to speak/type slowly.. Is there anyone on here as part of the discussion that thinks that beach hauling is ok?? Please put your hands up... All i hear is people saying how rubbish it is.. then there are the "others" the people that are fueling debate and wanting evidence that its not so bad.. Do you even fish?? Why are you on this site?? I don't have a degree in environmental science nor can i put up graphs to support my post, I abide by common sense and practical experience not classroom experience.
    We should be discussing how we can put a stop to it. Those who know how, should suggest ways we can, not feel the constant need to defend themselves.
    But then what happens when it's banned and we have more threads such as "Snapper $50 a kg" or what about TimD's post about buying 100kg of whole mullet......
    It's about finding the balance between these blokes having a livelihood to pay their bills and having a sustainable fishery. It's not just about you having a recreational activity...

  14. #74

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    Its a rec fishing site matooty... snapper at 50$ a kilo... who cares mate.. tiimd can do what he wants and in my opinion anyone who needs 100kg of mullet for rec fishing is not a rec fisherman.. livelihood from beach hauling...are you serious?? can you honestly say you believe that it is an income?? you are kidding yourself... i promise you they do not show a profit for tax purposes as a business and if they do i bet they dont get over the mid range tax threshold...sustainable fishery and beach hauling in the same sentence, hang your head in shame mate....
    dont knock on deaths door... ring the doorbell and run... death hates that!!

  15. #75

    Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong

    by the way Snapper at 50$ a kilo.. sounds about right from the rec side of fishing.. include bait, gear,plastics,petrol,maintenance,time,etc... be more like 100$ a kilo.... but as a rec fisho.... thats not really the point is it now...
    dont knock on deaths door... ring the doorbell and run... death hates that!!

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