Can't see the pic Tony. Are you telling us we have to cull another species as well😉😉
I've improved marginally Scotty. Got this off the banks yesterday. Hope the attachment opens. I'm as bad at computers as I am at fishing
Can't see the pic Tony. Are you telling us we have to cull another species as well😉😉
So what is the answer then?? We have pro's that want limit's reduced because rec's "might" catch fish, guy's that are big fish specialists who do catch big weights and won't as such really be affected by bag limit reductions , guys that only fish a few times a year and want to be able to put a few feeds in the freezer, guys that don't necessarily target big fish but bag out on smaller fish more frequently and probably a whole lot of groups that fall into different categories again. We don't all do things the same be it due to time, cost or other constraints. Who gets the most say as to which way things roll? Why should any of us have another groups ideology imposed upon us? Who is imposing the biggest actual damage to the resource ? Should we be looking at weight based catch limits? What are mortality rates for C&R and as such would a singular total limit be better overall than individual limits? Does the fact that professional fisherman pay a license fee mean they have a greater right to a resource or does it simply allow them to sell their catch and as such should they be subject to bag limits? How do we approach management and the weight of argument given to any particular interest group - purely from an economic standpoint, purely from an environmental standpoint or some combination of both - what weight is given to each side ? Should interest groups be given any say at all or should it be left up to science? Is fisheries science sound ? A whole different can of worms right there. Like everybody else here, I have a personal opinion but it is purely that - an opinion. It's based on my perception and my own experience - doesn't make it right though.
We all have our own way of doing things and as is human nature we apply our methodology to an argument when it arises. Statistics and data can be cherry picked to support or refute various arguments - it's the way it has always been. I don't see that as necessarily selfishness - more so these days as people sick and tired of being told what they can do and where by bureaucrats that a lot of the time either don't want to or can't explain "why". The down side to this is that unless all the stakeholders in a situation can come together and thrash out a solution, this is the way things will continue to be.
I guess in a way, everyone is responsible for how much we take, how much we are allowed to take, regardless if you are a beach fisherman, river fisherman, game fisherman or anything else, we simply have to have laws, everything we do is governed by laws, it's how we are what we are today, gun laws, fishing laws or road rules, "someone" is telling us what to do. Now that said, most laws are introduced by facts or statistics, things like wearing a seat belt or similar, fishing however is not an exact science, it's a best guess, influenced by what information is at hand, and st times, this information is somewhat questionable, but, it's all "they" have. A few years ago, every boat ramp within about a 100K radius was attended by volunteers, collecting data, such things as how many fish did you catch, what species, how many people fished, how long were you out, all sorts of things that could be collated to at least have a better "best guess" at rec effort and return, now to be clear, info was voluntary, and plenty said things like "caught nothing" when they obviously did, how this info was/is to be used for or against "us" is anyone's guess, to this day I haven't heard any outcome, but could the caught nothing people perhaps sway the data to think much stricter bag limits should be introduced? I really don't know, but the fact remains, there is millions of people fishing, with better boats and gear, if only a quarter of them got anywhere near their legal limit, it's a hell of a lot of fish, a hell of a lot of bait, fuel and tackle.
Last edited by Noelm; 15-07-2018 at 07:30 AM. Reason: Typo
Just to add, the whole pro V rec thing is a different issue and will rage forever, it has done forever, and will continue to do so.
Ok simple question- let’s double the bag limits- who does that benefit and what does that disadvantage?
Another question let’s alter and decrease the bag limits- same question as above
Double bag limits = full freezers, possible black market, possible/probable further decline in available fish stocks, possible more waste when people just can't be bothered cleaning any more fish, I have witnessed that first hand.
halve bag limit = probable increase in available fish stock, possibly more people hiding part of catch, more people able to catch their bag limit.
just to add to this, right now, the "run" is going on right near me, boats are coming in with bag limits of big Bluefin, some schools of fish have 20-30 boats working them, yesterday I saw 3 boats with 4 anglers each, weighing in 50KG plus fish, (making in excess of 200kg per boat) now all this is 100% legal, and one guy who I know said he was going to mince them up for burley for Shark fishing! how does that make any sense at all? I don't profess to have an answer for this, but it wasn't all that long ago that Bluefin were on the endangered list, and people whinged when severe limits were set, now they have returned (a species that has made a comeback) but, are "we" going to just fish them to the brink again? fishing limits and stocks is a very emotive issue, always was, and always will be, we only see the here and now, not the future.
I guess kind of, the Bluefin have made a comeback from the brink due to very strict limits on Pros and recs alike, it was pretty rare to catch one for years, and now they have recovered its catch as many as you are allowed, I have heard of stories of "upgrading" that is catching one each, and continue fishing, keeping bigger and bigger ones, and simply tossing the smaller ones over the side, I know this is kind of drifting off topic, but in a way, it relates to the topic too, laws are a necessity, and how those laws are determined can be in our hands.
It is very complex, and previous efforts were (in a way) to do jack shit until it's too late, then simply totally ban something hoping stocks will recover, realistic size and bag/possession limits are the way to hopefully ensure fishing for our kids and their kids. I have some very old photos of huge catches of Jewfish and Snapper that were supposedly caught by my father and grandfather, a catch like those today would be an outrage if even possible to catch at all. We cant blame politicians or scientists, we can't blame the past, we have a chance now, we'll I hope anyway.
I don’t have all the answers either but I do know individual in possession limits are a good thing and are the best way to manage the resource IMO. I just find the methodology behind the CRFF bag limit very strange and I can see them bringing it in for RRFF and other fisheries. I can see them saying a total of 10 Trag/Snapper/Pearl Perch/Cobia. After the Snapper farce you can bet your bottom dollar next on their target is Pearl Perch. You’ll have an maths geek telling us they are “growth overfished” and we’ll be back fighting with them again.
Democracy: Simply a system that allows the 51% to steal from the other 49%.