Reply With QuoteThank you Slider for providing the hard facts for the discussion on sustainability. Now the facts from the DPI are on the table.
Believe!
TM: Coded conversations?
Thanks to all who are participants to this very important issue...flatstrap
I just love coded conversations.
The government says one thing and the people say another. #They know the problems and the thing is they just dont care. #The government is paying parents today to have more children. #To me this is insane cause the more people the more you have to feed them.
I wasnt aware that the mullet situation has gotten so bad, down in NSW the back creeks are full of fingerling mullet and lake Illawarra has no shortage of them.
P/S I will make a phone call just to make sure.
signed tunaman
Thank you Slider for providing the hard facts for the discussion on sustainability. Now the facts from the DPI are on the table.
Believe!
TM: Coded conversations?
Thanks to all who are participants to this very important issue...flatstrap
Yes sorry about that.
Pressed post by accident.
now finished.
signed tunaman
I honestly can't take you seriously Flatstrap, everything about the language in your posts screams troll to me. Heavy on provocation and absent of facts and the more you kick this post with nonsensical dribble the more I feel I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about.
In fact with all your quotes and I cannot tell a lie it was me, for the good of the nation sermons I'm starting to wonder whether its actually a bot rather than a real person making your posts.
Do you have anything that resembles a fact, solution, observation or experience other than what you read in the paper yesterday? Do you have even a basic understanding of fisheries management? If netters stop taking roed fish what kind of economic impact will it have and will quotas remain the same or go up?
Government says 25 million is optimum population for Aust and CSIRO says we can't sustain it.
They will not be able to ignore the poor figures coming back from the netters log books fortunately. With increased protest from the public then they will have no option but to react.
I've sent a hundred emails to DPI and each state and federal fishery warning them of what was actually happening. It was only the Federal research centre in Canberra that responded by saying that they think I am right and will be looking at it more closely. I believe that DPI have since been told by the Federal research centre that they agree with my theories but I still haven't heard anything from DPI. Do they care? Only when it equates to votes won or lost. Unless there is a big enough noise that reaches the minister, then the DPI boys will continue to sit on their hands.
Voice your opinion Ausfishers!!!!
Good to see at least Slider is posting some hard numbers, over what area are these bad figures coming Slider? SEQ, QLD/NSW or local?
Just a short anecdote on mullet numbers.
When I was growing up, my favourite spot was Kedron Brook. I explored it fished in it for ell, and turtles and swordtails, swam in it and played along its banks from the Grange to the Toombul Shoppingtown.
It was a winding series of deep holes shaded by big trees,& the pools separated by shallow gravel beds. If you walked along it in those days you would not pass a pool that did not have a resident shool of mullet.
After the 74 flood they straightened it #and made it uniform width and depth, essentially a drain. And they removed all the shady trees
.I take my kids for a ride in the park now and would not remember when last i saw a school of #poddy mulllet in there.
So not only are the nets taking fish but habitat loss is shrinking numbers too.
If you are worried, as I am, take a minute to email the minister about your concerns, that is what will get a change happening,,, lots of noise from the electorate directly to the minister.
r
Straddie,
The poor returns are coming from the entire eastern seaboard and the entire western seaboard. And it's not just this year. They have been in steady decline for the past 3 years.
One of the reasons that the netters are getting so few mullet and what may also be giving us a worse than reality scenario is the recent behavioural change of the mullet. Instead of the mullet coming out of the rivers and turning left (right in W.A.) to spawn in the gutters to the north of the estuary. They are often now heading due east (west in W.A) in order to avoid the nets that have been waiting for them on the northern side of the mouth for decades. They are trying to spawn offshore which simply won't work and is very worrying in itself but it is the measure they have taken to avoid the nets.
Now if you think that fish aren't smart enough to learn such things then think again. There is ample evidence in existense to be able to demonstrate such behavioural changes where nets are involved.
Now Straddie I would suggest that your harsh words to flatstrap are not called for. He has started a post on a very serious subject and his assessment that you can't keep taking fish before they spawn and expect them to survive is obvious and I thought everybody would think so. Just because he hasn't been able to pluck catch rate figures from the air to assist his case I see as irrelevent. That is the idea behind having such a forum. So that the many experienced minds that partake in this site are able to contribute their knowledge for the benefit of all. I just wish more people would become as angry as Flatstrap and then we might actually cause DPI to address an issue that they are leaving too late to address.
Lindsay
PS. Aquaculture supplies 30% of all fish consumed by human beings. Now with grain products being able to be used to feed many of these aquaculture species, why in hell are we putting so much pressure on our wild fish. 1kg of aquacultured fish can sell for the same as 1kg of wild fish so economics can't be the reason. And what is better - a short term market for mullet roe as it stands now, or a long term market because we have managed our mullet stocks in a responsible way?
Well done Slider for having a good spirit,sometimes I feel my passion
for the world we share is falling on deaf ears, and ever day I see
the wildlife screamming in our faces.
To our fourfathers. What have you done!
And now we are left with all the mess.
Will my five kides ever be able to just go fishing like us,or will it
be all gone?
P/SThat phone call I made to NSW ? The mullet situation down there
wasnt good.
signed tunaman
Slider..I am afraid that refernce item by Mr Lindsay Dines that you refer to contains very little fact and a lot of suppostion:
"The current school of thought is" - assumption not fact
"is believed "- theory not fact
"Tagging programs would have demonstrated this to be the case," - no tagging done to give definitive answers
"I believe there are missing links in the D.P.I. analysis of tailor migration and spawning."
"My interpretation of tailor migration and influencing factors are as follows :" - one persons interpretation
"which may" - that nasty word "may" again..not a definite
"tailor may spawn as many as four times"
may again..he also said that juvenile females can produce between 250000 and 400000 eggs each spawning with more mature fish producing more
"reproductive rates. These rates of which we currently know very little," - they admit they know little about the rates
". Having assumed all of the above to be correct,"
- admits it is all an assumtption
"It is now known that mature females have stronger eggs and the
fingerlings are more likely to survive than those of younger females."
The above all refers to tailor spawning and then he goes on about mullet in the estuaries:
" There remains two significant stumbling blocks for these strategies to be successful. The first being the commercial beach seine netting of mullet. Primary Industries do not wish for this important resource to be abandoned and in my opinion, nor should it. The other obstacle is the number of commercial licenses currently dependant on beach seine netting of mullet, tailor and other inshore fin fish." - he admits that DPI and himself are not against the netting of the mullet.
"Queensland to date has resisted the implementation of general angling licenses due to potential political repercussions. Many anglers see it as their right to fish for free despite the pressures that are in existence on all of our fish stocks. I personally feel that if we are serious about the buy back of commercial licenses and improved management plans, then angling licenses are essential. New South Wales has proven that such a system can work and be well supported by the public. After all, where's the value in fishing for free if we can't catch anything? "
Mr Dines appears to have put a lot of thought into his paper, however, the way I read it, it is one man's theory with very little factual evidence. I will also state that I am completely opposed to an RFL in Queensland.
I am not completely opposed to restrictions on fish takes but let's ensure that any changes are based on fact and not assumptions. I might write a paper assuming that the majority of fish caught in the rec field are from tinnies therefore my conclusion could be that we ban the use of tinnies completely. It makes just as much sense when dealing with beliefs and assumptions....give us some facts to deliberate.
As far as i know the beach mullet fishery or k5 fishery is governed by boundaries to each individual's licience. This means only local fisherman can work there particular boundary and prevents other pro's from fishing multiple zones. For a group of nsw fisherman to fish bribie beach they would require not only a k5 with that zone but also a queensland master fishers licence, all these cost money. Then to sit on the beach for weeks in the hope that "maybe" 10 tonne of fish come there way isnt a pleasant way to make a living....Originally Posted by hussy
I started on a reply pinhead to clarify the points you raise and then decided against it as it would be occupying too much of my time to do so and I can't make a lot of sense out of what you've actually written anyway. All I can suggest is that people who are interested in this subject, read the articles that I have attached to an earlier reply on this post. Many of pinheads comments will be exposed for what they are during the reading of those articles. The facts that are listed in these articles are accurate, merely not referenced. Many of the conclusions are my own and therefore can't be referenced. The weight of secondary evidence for these conclusions is substantial and is why the conclusions are made. I invite anybody to demonstrate why any of these conclusions would not be correct, as having an open mind I am happy to be proven wrong.
Lindsay
dfox you are right. Most if not all of the yellow number plates we see belong to guys working for the license holder. Each license must by law have a minimum of 3 people working for that license and many of the employees follow the run up the eastern seaboard as the mullet exit the mouths to spawn first in southern waters.
slider...those red words are taken from the first article..quotes(in inverted commas)are from that article..my point is..it is all supposition and assumption...the author even states it his assumption..very little fact in that article and an awful lot of beliefs, maybes and assumption. Then I read your name slider..are you the author of the report? If so..please enlighten us with actual facts..not assumptions.
I have read that article hence all the quotes from it so please enlighten me as to how my comments can be exposed when I have exposed that the article is full of ifs, buts and maybes.
I am not in favour of creating unemployment in the professional fishing industry based on a heap of beliefs and assumptions and maybes...this is peoples livelihoods at stake here.
cheers.
And you quoted me as saying that I don't want to see an end to the industry.
You also quoted sections of my article in a fashion that was designed to suit your argument and changed the context of how it was written in the article. You can't take a sentence out and leave the next one in that has a bearing on the context in which the statement is being made.
I will touch just on your first highlighted remark - the current school of thought - is the current school of thought that DPI have on tailor migration. There is no supposition of anything. It is their current school of thought that is well documented for anybody to read.
The rest of your comments are equally as baffling to me.
Tailor may spawn as many as 4 times on a spawning migration, or they may spawn as few as once only. These are DPI's words not mine. and DPI also came up with the one about the number of eggs and success rates dependent on maturity.
They (DPI) do have unanswered questions about reproductive rates. I have thrown them some info which might just help them understand why 2 year old fish are smaller now than they were in the 70's.
Mate, I don't want to keep going with this although I would probably enjoy it, as it is not constructive and it is not encouraging for other people to express their views here. And the reference that I referred you to was the 'East Coast Finfish Submission' by DPI researchers. Not to my articles. You got it all wrong before you even started.
Posting Permissions
