Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 61
  1. #31

    Re: Why Nets Ruin Recreational Fishing

    Quote Originally Posted by robfish 1 View Post
    Sorry mate, have to disagree. The important parts of the statement are as follows...
    "other than baitfish that are too small for the mesh size of the nets and that are in receipt of the warning "

    ,To my mind, this very clearly intimates fish that are not in the vicinity of the nets, but are further removed, (kilometers away?)will assess whether the nets are a danger for them, by working out the size of the mesh used, (spatial reasoning), and decide if they need to avoid them.
    Why on earth would you jump to the conclusion the fish are working out the net size from that post? It's obvious that fish too small to be netted don't give off warning alarms and have no need to be alarmed. Fish that do get caught give off alarms to their fellow species.

    Quote Originally Posted by Robfish 1
    It may well be a grammatical error, but the entire FW post is so full of supposition, conjecture, erroneous conclusions and confirmation bias, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that context was indeed intended.

    Just look at these excerpts from the article.

    "After all, I tend to hear about every school of fish that are netted on Teewah Beach"
    "It first became apparent in the 1980s that fish were becoming difficult to find following a haul of fish taken in a net."
    "It was obvious to me then that precisely the same thing must be occurring here"
    "More than a decade later and with countless hours of research and observation now under my belt"

    Seriously? There's one hell of a lot of supposition there, and without stooping to flights of fancy, I could answer each and every point with a more logical, rational answer than "the nets did it!"

    And don't forget the closing statement by the author...
    "I have been quite active over the years in trying to change netting practices here and at Fraser Island, as have many others. Quite obviously we have all been unsuccessful and are now pessimistic about ever seeing the day that Teewah Beach and Fraser Island are net free. "

    Well - no hidden agenda there!

    I agree that there are distress signals emitted by fish - to disagree would be foolish, but to accept the absurdities in the article? And did you happen to notice the distinct lack of professional citations to back up the statements?
    Who knows? Maybe I'm a just little more skeptical than others.

    And I'd still like to know why a fish in a net emits a different distress signal than one being harassed by predators? And how could such a signal have evolved in such a short time as nets have been used - and other species made aware of this, given that evolutionary traits normally take hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years?
    Well he's written a 40 page submission with dozens of professional citations. Had 40 years observing the behaviour of fish. It's not like he woke up one morning from his greeny university lecture room an decided he hates commercial fishing and started to build a case. He first observed a phenomenon on an area of QLD that he's spent years observing and has I think a very strong case here. What is absurd is sitting back from an arm chair and a laptop, shitcanning someone that has done the time in the area observing and has done his research when you haven't.

    and behavioural changes in animals don't take hundreds of millions of years. Evolutionary physical changes don't even take that long even in humans.
    Democracy: Simply a system that allows the 51% to steal from the other 49%.

  2. #32

    Re: Why Nets Ruin Recreational Fishing

    Fine. I'm more than happy to accept there's been research done on the phenomenon. However, you may want to take note that it's ONLY on simlar species, and in particular, prey species. And no, I don't have any hard evidence to support my claim - I have already stated that my evidence was only anecdotal.

    "Fish, when trapped in a net, emit alarm ‘cues’ as a result of their panic (Myrberg 1981; Francis& Williams 1995; Smith 1992). Just as a terrestrial animal would release a cry of alarm whenbeing preyed upon, audible alarm vocalisations by sh, which can travel kilometres throughwater, warn conspeci cs and heterospeci cs of the same prey guild which has a history ofbeing exploited by beach seine nets, of the present danger. (Smith 1992) At the same timechemical ‘disturbance cues’ are emitted via a urinary expulsion when the sh become startledor alarmed, (Hazlett 1985; Kiesecker et al. 1995; Ferrari et al. 2008; Wisenden et al.1995just as a terrestrial animal would do in similar circumstances. Damage to the skin of thenetted sh resulting from contact with the net causes another chemical called schreckstoff tobe automatically released into the water which reliably informs receivers (conspeci cs andheterospeci cs) that conspeci c or heterospeci cs of the same prey guild have been predatedupon (netted). (Von Frisch 1938; Pfeiffer 1977; Smith 1992; Mirza & Chivers 2003; Pollocket al 2003; Brown et al. 2003) "

    So essentially, species can warn similar species via audible signals, (that can travel a considerable distance), and chemical signals, (immediate area only), of impending danger. Can't and won't argue with that. Too much evidence to support it.


    However, that still fails to explain why predatory fish, (dissimilar species), will also flee. And the articles mentioned don't take this into consideration, nor does Mr Dines, as that's not part of his obvious agenda. And I'm equally as sure that he's only cited evidence which supports his agenda - it's called cherry picking.

    Whilst the research cited may seem definitive, bear in mind that it's only for certain (limited),species, and the anecdotal evidence to the contrary of Mr Dines' claims is too much to dismiss.

    I'd research it if I was inclined to do so, but frankly, I couldn't be bothered.

    And anyway, we are off the thread topic by a whisker - we are after all, talking about the OP's post.
    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
    - Abraham Lincoln


  3. #33

    Re: Why Nets Ruin Recreational Fishing

    I dare say the direct answer is in Smith 1992 - Alarm Signals in Fishes. But it's safe to say that fish have alarm signals that are anti-predatory in nature and that could be part of the answer. I'll let Lindsay chime in on that one. But I will say that I think his evidence is a lot stronger than any anecdotal evidence I have seen to the contrary so I think he's on the money.

    When you have an observable phenomenon, you research it, observe it, then obtain scholarly peer reviewed articles that support your hypothesis and then form an opinion that beach netting needs to be stopped it's hardly an agenda that's been cherry picked. Is there something stronger that supports the contrary?
    Democracy: Simply a system that allows the 51% to steal from the other 49%.

  4. #34

    Re: Why Nets Ruin Recreational Fishing

    I don't argue that research has been done on the phenomena, and give due credit to it. But...it appears to be on a limited range of species, and under specific circumstances. There's no hard and fast rule that states it applies equally across all species of fish.
    Commonsense might tell us it does, but commonsense also tells us that the sky is blue - but it isn't!

    Actually, I believe quite a few of us would be interested to hear from commercial fishos on the subject. If they support these views of fish disappearing right across Moreton Bay after a single school is netted, then I'll seriously take note of them. It's their livelihood, after all, and their only agenda is to provide for their families - not to eradicate a section of the community that they see as the harm doers..

    By the OP's logic then, only one netter could work any 22km section of coastline, as all fish within sensory range of the first-netted school would be in panic mode, and fleeing the area, making it absurdly hard to shoot a net.
    As mentioned earlier, I could research it myself, if I gave a rat's. And after all...I'm only an ignorant fisho. What would I know?

    I'd imagine that until we hear from the commercial sector, the jury's still out.
    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
    - Abraham Lincoln


  5. #35

    Re: Why Nets Ruin Recreational Fishing

    I have seen this guy post these assumptions before and they are an absolute load of crap.
    Beach haulers have been working the same beaches and the same spots on those beaches for more than 100 years here in Australia.
    It is actually one of the oldest forms of fishing that we have here in this country.
    Every winter I watched and often helped a number of beach crews working the same beach.
    These crews will at times do maybe a dozen shots for the day.
    They do not scatter the fish for 22km each side of a working crew.
    That assumption is just absurd.
    On many occasions I have seen the haulers net a large quantity of fish where they have had to call in extra crew, trucks,fish boxes and ice so they leave the fish penned up in the net in the water while the extra resources arrived before they pull them from the water.
    During this time, other haulers are busy shooting their nets around other schools of fish.
    I have also seen on many occasions kids and adults casting baits and lures into these penned up fish and catching them, this especially happens with netted Salmon.
    Many recs fishing on these beaches and from boats just offshore also catch plenty of fish during the netting seasons.
    How many Tailor have been caught on Fraser Island over the decades while the beach haulers have been busy netting either Tailor or Mullet at the same time in the same areas.
    As for schools of fish heading South when they should be heading North, this happens on a daily bases as the fish move around from headland to headland feeding or moving back to an area that they feel safe enough to sit for a while when conditions do not suit their migration pattern at that time.
    You only need to stand on a rocky outcrop and see fish of all species moving back and forth in front of you.
    It has absolutely nothing to do with a net being shot somewhere within 22km either side of you.
    Now anyone that knows the slightest bit about beach hauling knows that these schools of mullet only travel with a Westerly wind.
    Other winds see them sitting off the rocky headlands or in the surf areas that the haulers cannot get to them.
    When the winds change, the fish begin to move North through the areas that the haulers can successfully and safely launch their boats and shoot their nets.
    The migration pattern of mullet is also very different every year.
    Some years the muller track in close along the surf lines and other years they will travel through the deeper water away from the beaches.
    This has nothing to do with rattling chains and nets on the beaches, it is just something that the fish seem to do.
    Going by these ludicrus assupmtions, fish spooking and fleeing from a net 22km away means a total stretch of coastline of 44km in length instantly becomes unfishable for the commercial haulers.
    If this is the case, what is your problem with commercial beach hauling.
    If your claims were true, there would be no commercial netting on our beaches as all the commercial haulers would be bankrupt and the practice would have ended decades ago.
    I would be too embarrased to make claims like this and to also have my name attached to them.
    Why do idiots that you hate continually like your posts?

  6. #36

    Re: Why Nets Ruin Recreational Fishing

    Great reply, Aussie! What a shame we only have experience backing us up...and not peer-reviewed papers.

    What you stated about mullet could well be true, and depend greatly on the fish ultimately leading the school.

    Back when I fished PPB heavily for snapper, where they headed when entering the bay seemed to be dependent on where the lead fish headed. South and East along the main shipping channel, north into the deeper basin, or norwest towards St Leonards and Geelong.
    Every school was different, and anecdotal (sorry) Fisheries Victoria evidence suggested that it was fish that had previously entered PPB that led the school and dictated direction.

    But then again, I only have 40 years experience and observations to back me up.
    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
    - Abraham Lincoln


  7. #37

    Re: Why Nets Ruin Recreational Fishing

    Fish seem to have a sixth sence when returing to waterways like PPB.
    It has always been believed that the same schools of Snapper would return to say Corio Bay year after year whilst others returned to other areas of the bay
    Why do idiots that you hate continually like your posts?

  8. #38

    Re: Why Nets Ruin Recreational Fishing

    [QUOTE=Lovey80;1615993]I dare say the direct answer is in Smith 1992 - Alarm Signals in Fishes.

    Possibly, but in the synopsis that I've read, it all revolves around chemical stimuli. That is to say, chemicals such as shreckstoff and pheromone release which in turn alerts other fish in the immediate area - not up to 22km away.

    As far as I have researched, (and I'll admit I have not devoted a great deal of time and energy), almost all articles found, relate to chemical release - not vibratory distance communication.
    Very handy to other fish in the immediate area but hardly the stuff of distance communication! And I'll freely admit to believing and accepting, the release of chemical stimuli. We've all heard of pheromones, so that's no biggie..

    So again at this stage, I'm calling it for cherry picking articles which at a cursory glance, support the obvious agenda..
    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
    - Abraham Lincoln


  9. #39

    Re: Why Nets Ruin Recreational Fishing

    "Fish seem to have a sixth sence when returing to waterways like PPB.
    It has always been believed that the same schools of Snapper would return to say Corio Bay year after year whilst others returned to other areas of the bay "


    I recall Ross Winstanley of Fisheries Victoria, once stating, (anecdotally?), on the Rex Hunt 3AW radio show, that if too many of the lead fish from each school of snapper were culled, then the balance would probably not enter PPB, as they had little experience in entering bays, and did not need the reduced salinity levels once thought necessary for spawning. So the older fish, having entered the bay, (possibly many times), would lead the schools.
    Snapper all along the west coast of Vic, and also along the NSW coast, don't seem to require reduced salinity levels to breed, nor a sheltered waterway such as PPB or Westernport.
    I don't know if this was ever proven, or even researched, but we tended to believe him for his vast wealth of accumulated piscatorial knowledge.
    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
    - Abraham Lincoln


  10. #40

    Re: Why Nets Ruin Recreational Fishing

    Quote Originally Posted by robfish 1 View Post
    Great reply, Aussie! What a shame we only have experience backing us up...and not peer-reviewed papers.
    From my experiences I would back both Sliders comments as well as the research. Fishing Moreton Island's beaches in club comps once a month for over 25 years has taught me fishing any area recently netted would result in catches well below average. Most clubs would go to great lengths to gather information of the netters recent activities prior to select in areas to be fished.
    ~~~><))))*>

  11. #41

    Re: Why Nets Ruin Recreational Fishing

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Delisser View Post
    From my experiences I would back both Sliders comments as well as the research. Fishing Moreton Island's beaches in club comps once a month for over 25 years has taught me fishing any area recently netted would result in catches well below average. Most clubs would go to great lengths to gather information of the netters recent activities prior to select in areas to be fished.


    I guess that's pretty understandable, Mike, and probably quite true. So do you also support the 22km exclusion zone scenario?

    However, here's another scenario. Could it also be that having been netted, the are is devoid of substantial fish life for a time, so the food chain, (predators) moved to another location to seek their prey? And the netted area eventually repopulates/is inhabited by other schools?
    To my untrained and uneducated mind, this seems to be a more likely scenario.

    Again, I look to PPB as an analogy. When scallop dredging was in full swing, dredgers would denude the benthos of anything remotely resembling food, and snapper, known to feed in scallop-laden areas, would move on until such time as scallops and other benthic animals and flora repopulated the area. This would often occur within a surprisingly short timeframe. Spat molluscs, shrimps, polychaete worms, smaller fish species, all would move in again quite rapidly.

    Given that most of the fish you were probably seeking were preying on other fish, (baitfish, as there's not too much benthic life on a sandy beach), and these had been removed from the equation, is it not likely that those predators then moved on in search of suitable prey? Salmon, Tailor, Tuna and many other species are constantly roaming our coastlines, seeking shoals of baitfish.

    I'm certainly not arguing that netting is beneficial - just trying to provide a balance to what I perceive as distortion and misdirection.
    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
    - Abraham Lincoln


  12. #42

    Why Nets Ruin Recreational Fishing


  13. #43

    Re: Why Nets Ruin Recreational Fishing

    The fish are still there, we can see our target spieces in the waves Aussie. The prob is 9 times out of 10 from as soon as the nets are hauled they'll shut down for up to 2 days (in our experience). We really need to travel quite a distance to have a chance. On more than several occasions a good bite has come to a screaming halt as soon as netters start hauling mullet a k or 2 up the beach.
    In my previous post I highlighted what we've noticed happening after netting takes place on surf beachs. Why would you use examples of snapper fishing in Port Philip Bay and schollop dredging?
    ~~~><))))*>

  14. #44

    Re: Why Nets Ruin Recreational Fishing

    Sorry Mike. I thought the analogy was pretty clear. Take away the food source, and the fish move on. Wait a little while for the food chain to re-establish, and the fish move back in.
    Beaches,bays,blue water, or freshwater, Shouldn't make a whole lot of difference. Take away the food, and there's nothing to keep the predators there.Works for land animals, too. How many reports appear around the world, of wild animals entering suburbia for food, as their regular food source in the wild has been depleted? (sorry if this is another unclear analogy!)

    And it seems that beaches must be radically different to bays, for some unknown reason. Snapper fishing/catching still occurred within line of sight of garfish, mullet and pilchard netting and longlining in PPB. Doesn't happen now - netting's been phased out. And let's not forget all those struggling snapper on the longliners' hooks - often within a km of us. Didn't seem to send other snapper screaming away in a panic!

    But once again..could there be other factors at play? Have you explored all other possibilities? Climactic changes? Barometric pressure? Decreased/increased sunlight? Feeding triggers? Tidal changes? The list of possibilities seems endless.
    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
    - Abraham Lincoln


  15. #45

    Re: Why Nets Ruin Recreational Fishing

    Again with the PPB in a discussion on beach netting. Who's removed the food source? We're chasing whiting , bream, dart. Netters are hauling schools of mullet. Our experience is these shut down (won't feed) as soon as mullet are netted.
    ~~~><))))*>

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