Tailor Stocks Hanging by a Thread

[Tailorfisho78]

We'll see how the 2013 Tailor season pans out hey? 2012 was a non event as far as the bigger fish were concerned. They were few and far between.

I'm all for taking a feed of fresh fish and have taken plenty of fresh tailor in my time, but cannot justify to continue doing it to the detriment of the species as a whole. We can bitch and moan about it all we like, but the recreational take of tailor in the current climate exceeds the pro catches. Pro catches in beach nets are devastating because they wipe out entire schools, but the recreational line fishing accounts for tonnes and tonnes of fish too, so the axe must fall on both parties to achieve an acceptable solution.

I have to agree with you on the above Kev, Line (Beach Fisho's) do take a shitload of fish! For example, we go to fraser with Ten blokes, we all take our 20 fish = 200 fish. Lets say early season fish around the 900 - 1kg mark. so 200KG of tailor 1st week of August. Now times that by how many boys trips in August, September, October. Gee it starts adding up very quickly and this is just one section of beach and this is being taken from the "BREEDING GROUNDS". Lets remember the bag limit used to be 50 then it dropped to 30 for Fraser Island if the stay was longer than 72hrs and now we are at 20 and we are finding it even harder to catch a legal fish. Well if someone is trying to tell me we don;t have a problem with Tailor numbers and sizes they must be walking around with head stuck so far up their ass and also to think we do not need to put more measures in place to protect what we all like to go and enjoy these people need to have a really good look at themself because you are very much out numbered when it comes to opinions on Tailor stocks. Sorry if my opinion offends anyone but this is something that pisses me off and the sooner or Pollies can get off there butt and do something about it the better the whole fishery will be.
cheers and beers
Keithy

[Gazza]

35cms and 19bag.
My last & final offer
lol Greenies

[Just_chips]

35cms and 19bag.
My last & final offer
lol Greenies

lol Troll

If you cant contribute anything useful then don't bother......

[Gazza]

Lol , another greenie or netter
Or nutter trying to reduce RecFishos allowed bag /size
Not gunna happen m8....

[Tailorfisho78]

35cms and 19bag.
My last & final offer
lol Greenies

Educated?? I doubt it very much!

[Slider]

I also would be dead against any closures other than seasonal north of Indian Head to Rooney Point to protect spawning stock and 1 year old fish making their way from the Sandy Straights to Sandy Cape during August and September, or September and October.

To my way of thinking that doesn't necessarily mean that fishing can't take place inside this seasonally closed area during the specified months, but the targeting and keeping of tailor could be prohibited for the term of the closure - as per barra.
It would seem silly to prevent Mr and Mrs Jones and their kids from fishing for whiting with worm along Orchid for instance, when it is only tailor that we are trying to protect.
Gets a little trickier when slugs or poppers can be used to specifically target gt, goldens, queenies, mackerels in this region during these months and tailor will also obviously take these. But the tailor still can't be legally kept and I don't see this as a significant issue.

This arrangement, in my opinion, should only occur under the circumstance of there being no netting within 500m of the beach north of Ngkala Rocks to Rooney Point. If this condition isn't on the table, then I'd fear for any agreed outcome being attainable.

I would like feedback on this idea of the seasonal closure of tailor only - for or against.

Size limit to 40cm and bag to 10 is where I'd like to see things as a general rule for Qld tailor.

Speaking of closures - the ones at Moreton eastern beach and around the Cape - does anyone know what they're intented to do?

I fear the content of my last post will get lost unless I bring it to the surface again. I would like feedback on the suggested closure north of Indian Head and for the Moreton closure question to be answered if possible.

Gazza's posts aren't worth replying to.

[lampuki]

Hi Lindsay.

"Size limit to 40cm and bag to 10 is where I'd like to see things as a general rule for Qld tailor." - I agree.

I dont want to see another closure.

[Just_chips]

Proposed bag and size limit changes are fine, but I also don't want to see a closure of this calibre introduced.

[Moonlighter]

Quote Slider: Speaking of closures - the ones at Moreton eastern beach and around the Cape - does anyone know what they're intented to do?

Lindsay

I am surprised that you do not seem to be aware of the difference between fisheries closures and Marine Park closures. Allow me to educate you just a little, if I may.

The closures you refer to above are Marine Park conservation zones. The purpose of these Marine Parks zones have nothing to do with managing fisheries or fish stocks or anything like that. People need to get that thru their heads - Marine Parks are NOT designed or intended to benefit fishing in any way shape or form. The fact is that they are not developed, designed, or administered by the Fisheries Departments/agencies either in the Commonwealth or States!

They ARE designed, developed and implemented by the Environment Departments of those governments. Those bodies, despite trotting out the rhetoric about saving fish, and fisheries sustainability (the biggest weasel word ever invented), are neither charged with or interested in effective fisheries management and that includes the sustainability of the fishing of any particular species. In that context, their only interest is in issueing export permits for such species when State of C'Wealth fisheries agencies have certified them to be sustainably fished. It is simply NOT THEIR JOB to manage fishing or fisheries!

Marine Parks are not, as some people have been conned into thinking by our greeny friends, tools that have the intent or purpose of creating sustainable fishing. They are purely and simply the tools of the conservation movement and their aim is conservation, pure and simple. Lock it up, throw away the key, keep people out.

So, as soon as anyone tries to tell you that marine parks conservation zones are there to benefit fishing and that you, as a fisherman/woman should be happy about that, the BS meter should immediately go off the scale! Because you will immediately know they are telling you porkies and are trying to dazzle you with their fictitious and dishonest use of quasi science and twisted statistics.

And excuse my cynicism, but the conservation movement has been very effective in playing their cynical game to get more zones in Marine Parks closed to fishing than ever before. Recently, for example, only around 26% of respondents who made submissions to the South Australia marine parks proposals were from SA, the rest were interstate, and a major chunk, I think about 50% of those from outside SA, were from international conservation organisations (form letters/submissions) in mainly the US and Canada, for heavens sake!

Calls for more "closures" are therefore a long way off the mark. The only "closures" used as management tools by fisheries are seasonal spawning closures or nursery closures such as Swann Bay.

Please, also make sure that if/when you talk to Qld Fisheries you make sure you let them know that you are representing only your own views and perhaps those of a handfull of Ausfishers, not even all who have posted on this thread. You certainly do not represent mine, nor have you got any claim to representing the broader recreational fishers in this State.

Cheers

ML

[Tangles]

Agree with Moonlighter and to give examples,,

Be careful what you wish for: I think people should read the Qld 2012 Moreton -Marine Park-Monitoring report.

I loved just loved the absolutely unbiased manner this report takes to present its findings on how successsful the Green Zones are etc:


There are some are crackers in 32 page report, ie on shorebirds on exposed beaches,

"Beaches and dunes deliver important ecosystem services (e.g. nesting habitats for turtles and birds, foraging areas for shorebirds and fishes), but the attractiveness of beaches for human use and recreation makes them also ecologically vulnerable."


Photo 8. Example of pressure from vehicle-based recreation: flock of crested terns disturbed by a 4WD on North Stradbroke Island and a dead tern killed by a vehicle. Photo: DERM.[/I]

Now driving a 4wbie which causes some birds to fly off is portrayed as almost criminal and i sort of think the tern was placed over the car tracks.

[Tangles]

I also loved this in the report from DERM, they arent only looking at the biology of the bay


The socio-ecological focus of the Moreton Bay monitoring program means that people’s values and feelings about the marine park will be assessed as well as the biological aspects. This is critical as it provides decision makers with a range of information to consider.

I also loved the stereotyping of the stakeholders: I note with interest what a wrap the other groups get with seemingly a greater marine ethic? which clearly equates to a greater voice. I love how a govt department clearly considers people fishing to be less ethical than others who have a supposed ecological higher viewpoint!!

The tourism, industry, fishing sectors view the bay as a great asset with strong economic potential. However, this is tempered through their understanding of the need for sustainable development. Environmental, education and community groups also support sustainable development and work to ensure a healthy bay into the future. These groups view the bay through a different set of values—ecological, aesthetic and symbolic, as they call for a greater marine ethic, wider community education about the bay and the marine park, and greater care of mangrove and marine ecosystems. Through their drive to preserve the bay, they encourage others to get involved in volunteer projects from beach clean ups to seagrass watch, water monitoring and bird observing.

This is a DERM report, is it unbaised, ethical and just stating the facts. Well its really just a call for more surveys to be done in the end to justify another report as they really havent got much info yet.

I note in the first pages they note that only most zones have been surveyed which gave me a lot of confidence in the rest of the data.

Since August 2008, most zones in Moreton Bay were surveyed on multiple occasions by boat-based teams (Figure 1). Surveys were also taken six months before zoning was implemented, and then bimonthly in the 24 months after zoning. The study included the period of management change (the introduction of the new zoning), seasonal variations in fishing activity, and other uses of the study area.

Just my unbiased opinion of course

[Slider]

Lol - the marine park thing has really left you a bitter man by the sounds Moonlighter. Never mind, I was just curious and if your response is the only one I get to the question, then I'll just move on. But you are most definitely correct that I won't be representing your interests to FQ or anywhere for that matter as your views and mine are clearly different.

I can appreciate that nobody wants to see another closure, or any closure. I'm no different in this sense, but we do have to be realistic with regards to the current tailor situation.

[Slider]

Have read your posts twice Tangles and still can't work out how they're relevant. I may be slow, but can you explain this for me?

[Tangles]

Slider, stay with it, it was following on from Moonlighters post:

Marine Parks are not, as some people have been conned into thinking by our greeny friends, tools that have the intent or purpose of creating sustainable fishing.

Even from there own 2012 report on how great closing down fishing areas has been ( well DERM have to say that to justify it), they dont by their own admission really know whats happening as they really still havent got the cold hard facts, well how can they when they admit to not even surveying all the areas they have closed down to see what affect it will have, and start from a viewpoint that isnt exactly beach or boat fishing friendly.

Closing Fraser to fishing is what your saying, im saying be careful what you wish for

[Slider]

Oh, I see - following on from Moonlighters rant about conspiracy theories. No worries.

Closing Fraser Island to fishing? No wonder it's hard to stay on track when things can be twisted to that degree.