I would like to find out peoples opinions on the legal size of bream is 23 cms to small. I am a land based fishermen and admit probably 75% of my catch is usually bream, but I am wondering how many people would actually keep a 23cm bream, this size you don't get fillets worth even filleting.
Since they have increased the legal size of squire it seems the general size of catch has also increased is this required for bream to give them a chance to grow into a decent size fish. Generally my mates and I don't keep a bream unless it is over 30cm at this size you can at least get a reasonable fillet of one.
I have brought this subject up because on the weekend I was fishing down at the seaway and saw people keeping bream by the bucket full which would have all been just legal.
I am wondering what peoples opinions are on this mater and if you think what size is a reasonable bream to take home.
<>< <>< <><
In NSW the leagl size is 25cm and I believe that even at that size they are not worth the effort for a feed.
On the rare occasion that I do keep a bream for a feed it would have to be at least 30cm to make it worth while.
There are plenty of better table fish out there and I would much rather take home a nice feed of flatties
ON-THE-CHEW
just like yourself I only keep the big fat bream I find It to be awaste of time keeping smaller ones. I always throw the smaller bream back and try to catch his grandfather to have a beer with him. bream size In NSW are 25cm to keep a 23cm bream would be nothing than skin & bones..
cheers
LEN
After catching a few nice squire in the passage when you bring up a just legal bream end up throwing back without measuring them they look too small. Think 30cm would be a bit harsh 25-27cm more reasonable but until these sizes are lift up if people want to keep the legal size ones I wouldn't look down on them it's up to each person.
Mark
I let em all go
seriously though , a 23 cm Bream is pretty damn small ...but the regs will go on the terms that it will allow succesfull replenishment of the stocks....and it doesn't seem to ( IMO ), so there is no real reason to raise the limit , you still get more out of a 23cm bream then you do a legal limit whiting ....or gar etc etc , some peoplethink they are the bomb and have no problem with fiddling with the bones
I dont keep a bream under 30cm either.
However, we need to encourage the kids and families who are not so regular fishers.Bream is the most plentiful and easiest to catch, in my opinion. Weve gotta let people keep something to keep their interest in the sport, so why not 'sacrifice' the most plentiful catch?
Have you seen a 5 yr olds face when he catches a 23cm bream? I wouldnt like to tell him to put it back.......he'll never fish again. Dad wont tell him to put it back either, unless hes very dedicated to understanding legal limits, and we dont want to make criminals of ordinary dads.
I don't think kids need to keep fish to be excited by catching them. I've not got any kids myself, but when fishing with my mates young family the kids go ape over the catching of anything.......even toadfish. In fact just catching the bait (yabbies) is as entertaining for them. We have a great time with the kids and best of all no stinky cleaning little fish.
The big one's (30cm up) are a different story.
Cheers, Roo.
I tend to agree broadly with the general concensus. A 23cm bream is a pain to fillet, and you won't get much flesh for the bother.
I occassionally keep one or two around this size (NEVER under) for the little fella to see the "ritual" of cleaning and cooking if we haven't managed anything better, but otherwise if I'm on my own I really woudn't bother.
On the other hand, as I understand it, bream are prolific breeders and the 23cm ruling wouldn't be there if the DPI (or whoever sets it) thought it was affecting "safe" levels. I don't have a problem with people taking a few of these since they're behaving legally, I just don't think it's worth the hassle personally. Nor would I have a problem if the DPI felt 23cm was too low and raised it a bit - it wouldn't affect my habits much.
Perhaps a reduced bag limit on the smaller ones would be a fair compromise if it's a problem.
I believe that in general, Ausfishers are consciencous anglers, so you're unlikely to have anyone behaving irresponsibly and disagreeing with what's being said on here. If only that were the case across the whole community.
Mike
Like others, I don't keep bream under 30cm either.
But I don't see any reason to enforce a greater limit than 23cm. If, as we all say, a 23cm fish is ridiculously small to keep, then people who keep ones that are smaller have absolutely no excuse for breaking the limits.
If a 23cm limit is sustainable, then we should not deny some little kid the choice to take that fish home and show mum and the rellies, or some person who fishes with very little success to take something home to feel that they've at least got a feed.
There are many 'casual' fishers who hardly catch anything but a barely legal bream. Eating a fish that you caught yourself is always more pleasurable than one you bought from a shop, so we should avoid denying people the choice to do that, even if its just skin and bones
Gents,
Bream is a true bread and butter species for everyone. It makes up a staple part of the take come component of average mum and dad weekend fishos. Us guys that are a bit more experienced may have the opportunity to catch bigger and better fish but you have to take into account the majority of people that fish from land.
To that end it's always got to be possible to allow those fisherpeople to take ahome some fish to eat. Mike is right in that there is fair bit of evidence that Bream have quite a number of chances to spawn at 23cm.
You also have to take into account that an increase in size will have a detrimental affect on the catch of pro fisherman. And before everyone starts we all have to face the fact that there is always going to be a pro fishing industry.
Another influencing factor is the NSW size and bag limit for compliance sake. Makes policing and understanding the rules much easier given our proximity.
Have said all that - I have no idea what the news rules will be
Brett
i cant remember where i saw it but apparently a 23cm bream is 5 yrs old....imagine how old a big blue nose is?...
I'd like to see it brought up. It won't really affect my catch, I'd rather have a cast at a flathead any day if I needed something for the table, but I'd still like to see the limit raised. It would be good to have the regulations the same, just to ease the confusion for holidays-only fishermen. Just MHO
Joel
Fishing for the thrill, not for the kill
I did a little research on this a while ago.
At 23 cm Qld has the lowest size limit. (Except NT which has none)
(BTW WA has a bag limit of 4)
Minimum sizes are set by their maturity. Basically they should be allowed to breed once before being caught. That’s the general rule on all species.
(How the heck Mangrove jack is allowed to be caught in juvenile sizes I don’t know)
Anyway they have the larger Black Bream down South which may account for the larger minimum size.
Anyway back to Qld it seems the scientists originally got it wrong Or they only got it right for males. According to the latest DPI study (2002) - minimum size for breeding females is 24cm while males is 23 cm. On top of this they usually add a bit.
So in reality I say the minimum size anyone should keep is 25 cm. And that is probably close to what will happen in the next set of regulations (Inshore Fin Fish) which last I heard was delayed for a year.
Even when the kids want to keep dinner - we measure to the fork That adds a good fudge factor.
Gary
in NSW the leagal size used to be 27cm (the size i still stick by and to the fork not streching the buggers bockbone out to get it to the size) however a few years ago the fisherys changed it down to 25cm after a study showed that at 25cm a bream has breed at least two times
but as i sayed i still stick to 27cm no realy point other wise
another thing but and that is if most of us don't keep them untill 27-30cm i'am sure more people out there do the same too so in that case it may be the manority that keep the smaller leagal size hence not really affecting much at all
great reply above #- very sensible chap #- but boring as used dish water
Age: # The same DPI study says 23cm Bream are 3 to 5 years old.
I seem to recall reading (Starlo?) # the old Bream are maybe 30 years old #- he is a reliable thorough write # # but I have not see the original #science on that.
Gary
Modified: Whoops sorry basserman I was making a joke about my post not yours - you snuck in there while I was typing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
