Some thoughts

[SCREAMER]

I don't think I could "pin" point him out but

screamer by the way at a recent pro conference it was suggested that the commercial sector chip in to worthy stocking programs since in places like the Fitzroy River the pro take is like 10-1 or more (google might have bullshirted you in our area)
the suggestion was for only one or two hundred each raising around $20,000 but it was shot down
after the commercial take in the Fitzroy in the past few wets the local fish stocking groups are questioning whether it is worth the effort to continue if they are only lining the pockets of a couple of greedy pricks
like anywhere and any industry there are cowboys and there are people who do the right thing
cheers

I have no idea what that has to do with me. I'm not nor have I ever been a commercial fisher. I was quoting in general bread and butter species averages. 10-1 for a very specific river for a single species is no surprise. Might as well quote sea mullet 99.9% commercially caught so there SCREAMER you are wrong For the record I do NOT support stocking outside of dams.

[SCREAMER]

I suspect Screamer that Mod 2 didn't choose to not mention nets because they are a bleeding obvious cause of depleting fish stocks, but because he doesn't believe they are a factor in our fisheries at all.

Irrespective, they must be of course and unlike the majority of other factors such as habitat loss, pollutants, and nutrient run off, nets are easily addressable.

Whilst recreational impacts must also be a factor, it is quite apparent that fish populations are not depleted by recs when under an appropriate management structure of bag and size limits. This is demonstrated by the recovery of fish populations following net bans in specific regions - Lakes Macquarie and Illawarra being classic examples along with Sydney Hbr. Even when the rec take is substantially higher than that of commercial. There are good and identifiable reasons why this is so - namely because nets displace species from their spawning and feeding grounds with impacts on recruitment - an impact that recs do not have.

It may be perceived that to close areas to commercial netting will reduce the supply of locally caught seafood, but quite the opposite in actuality is what occurs. NSW, for example, saw an increase in commercial yields following implementation of 30 net free regions and the buy back of 300 inshore commercial net licences in 2001. While this may seem counterintuitive, it is actually to be expected if one understands the dynamics of fish that are targeted by commercial nets.

So, we can ponder all of the factors that Mod 2 has nominated for as long as we like and do nothing about any of them because it's too hard or expensive, or we can address our netting problem.

I don't know who mod2 is although it seems you are implying they are a commercial fisher? Easily addressable as in banning? I have heard the greenies say the same about all fishing. Ban it so we can save the sea kittens.

Data is most often abused when those interpreting it are looking for a specific outcome. Quoting specific areas where netting is no longer allowed and stating the stocks recovered is misleading. There are several factors at work. Those specific areas will have been chosen for commercial fishing as they would be the most productive for them. You have removed a large amount of effort.

The effort simply gets redistirbuted. Taking licenses out of the system means more targeted fishing.

You argument is the same as the GBRMP rubbish where a year after introduction it was hailed as winner because they were finding more fish in the marine park. Some how 4 to 10 year fish had "grown" in the area after only 12 months Could it have been 33% of the reef was now "quieter" and like most animals many fish prefer that. The other 66% was now under greater pressure so less fish than previously.

Did I say it was good to see something other than a commercial fishing bash thread *lol*

[Slider]

No, I'm not implying that Mod 2 is a commercial fisher - I know he's not. It's not about pro bashing either - if Greg had made mention of nets as being a factor in our fisheries then I wouldn't need to participate here at all. The non-mention of nets, which, based on the evidence would be the single most significant factor, is inferring that they needn't be considered which is ludicrous.

'Easily addressable' as in banning the use of nets in locations deemed to be suitable - ie of high ecological importance (spawning/ feeding/nursery grounds) and of high recreational and tourism benefit to the community. Economic returns to the community from recreational fishing far outweigh that from commercial and businesses associated with recreational fishing must be afforded the opportunity to flourish. As it stands, these businesses in Qld are going backwards with recreational fishing tourists heading elsewhere such as to the N.T. or N.Z. and local participation rates falling.

The return of fish to areas closed to netting is well documented, but I'm struggling to comprehend what aspect of this is misleading. The buy back of licences, if done properly, should maintain effort at more sustainable levels in areas permitted to be fished and which are supplemented by protection of spawning/nursery stock. There is nothing misleading about the evidence being that the remaining individual commercial fishers catch more than they did before implementation of net free regions and the overall yield remaining consistent or increasing at the same time as recreational fishers are catching more and bigger fish in the net free regions. When many licence holders would love to be bought out and larger individual yields quite obviously preferable, where is the problem here?

[SCREAMER]

Just another hijacked thread, I'm done.

[tunaticer]

'Easily addressable' as in banning the use of nets in locations deemed to be suitable - ie of high ecological importance (spawning/ feeding/nursery grounds) and of high recreational and tourism benefit to the community. Economic returns to the community from recreational fishing far outweigh that from commercial and businesses associated with recreational fishing must be afforded the opportunity to flourish. As it stands, these businesses in Qld are going backwards with recreational fishing tourists heading elsewhere such as to the N.T. or N.Z. and local participation rates falling.

Lindsay, 100% of Australia's coastline now is part of the tourism area, there is nowhere left where you can not get a charter boat to take you outside of green zones. The general public invades every square inch as well.
Where would you suggest a high impact commercial fishery zone these days be placed?

Secondly, your penchance for forcing the net buy back schemes will not benefit Australia in the long run. Fewer commercial nets being used will increase the import of seafoods from overseas, therefore increasing our exposure to foreign diseases and damaging our economy. Some of the guys that get "bought out" will stay within the seafood industry for the dollars that can be made importing cheap "seafood" from overseas for maximum profit.

The better way for Australia to manage it's fishery is to stop exports and imports of seafoods. That will regulate the tonnages taken, the viable licences and the viable operators much more than banning this or that.

Primarily, the first thing we have to do is stop the bio-security hazzards, if one foreign disease outbreak occurs here it can have decades of impact, if not permanent impact. The east coast of Australia had a foreign disease that impacted the pilchards stocks massively, that one outbreak had nearly two decades of impact before the stocks recovered to being a viable fishery again in that area.

That is by far in excess of your netting issues.

[Horse]

To single out one particular issue is going to fail in the long run. Our fish stocks are under increasing pressure from both recreational and commercial harvesting. Pollution and environmental degradation are increasing at an alarming rate. We will have to take a holistic approach if we want to see any long term improvements

[Slider]

But to ignore the one issue Neil which is easily addressable and known to be high impact, is illogical. The results attained by NFAs are speedy whereas to address any of the other issues, which I agree must also occur if possible, will take much, much longer while human pops continue to rise and require massive taxpayer funded measures.

As mentioned in my previous posts Tunaticer - net free regions increase, or at least maintain the commercial yield ..... which reduces the dependency on imports and sustains our fish resources for longer. To not have net free regions increases our dependency on imports and increasingly so into the future. Greater viability per licence also reduces the price of locally caught seafood and thus import dependency which is price driven. At the same time, the necessity to export is reduced because Aussies are more able to afford locally caught product.

At this point there are proposed to be 10 net free regions in Qld. These would total less than 5% of the existing inshore area available to commercial netting. If the commercial fleet is reduced by 10% (say), then there is an increased area to be fished per licence.
It is one thing for there to be ample access to fishing locations outside of green zones, it is entirely another for there to be healthy fish pops in these locations which is the incentive for recreational fishing tourists to come to Qld and local participation rates to be maintained.


Also relevant - if Qld's fish stocks continue to deplete, then pressure will increase to close areas to all fishing which is unnecessary and undesirable.. NFAs are a conservation tool that enhance both commercial and recreational sectors and prevent further green zones.