Should There Be A bag Limit For Bream?

[Maxg]

Not every one of our "northern neighbours" is an asian. And even if they were, some of "Asian" practises are not designed to be anything but racist themselves, so you can hop off that horse.
Bag limits for bream. Considering that bream have been a staple diet of rec fishers since the year dot, and it has now hit home to the great unwashed that they eat lures and flies with gusto, the "sportfishing" fraternity have nominated them as a "Holy Grail" which puts a hell of a lot of pressure on the species, that they did not have before the "discovery". Of course there should be bag limits, and increased size limits, if only to put a stop to this bream competition mania, which is Bull anyway.
In WA the bag limit in the Swan River is 4 but in the south its 20 but anglers have "bragged" about catching hundreds and are activly competing in these contests getting huge reputations as catchers of bream The bag limits on bream should be so low as to not make competition worth while, like 1 per week.
Max

[Gazza]

Max ,what happens over there ,when somebody catches say 15 "in the South" and drives home , over the Swan River ,and gets "stopped" by Fisheries #???

Also , don't quite see the "competition" angle regards Bream, should in any way effect ,say 98% of RecFishos , who don't fish "competition" #???

23cms is tiny ,but over spawning-size , these next few months ,anybody would laugh at you ,if the fish weren't 30cms or so anyway.
The length is a min. legal length , the size any person wishes to keep them is their own business.

[squire]

To All it has been great to read all your feed back to date on this subject it has been great. However please stick to the topic at hand and leave the other well alone, it was not my intention for one person to cast judgement on another. It was my intention to gather information on what my fellow fisher people thought regards Marty.

[Maria]

With regard to that, it was never my intention to start a debate with the likes of Jockey as to whether or not what I post is racist in nature. I log onto AusFish daily to talk fishing - not to become engaged in discussion of that kind.

Ben

[vertico]

not only should the bag limit be lowered to around 5 bream per person
but the size limit is way too low, come on how much food is on a 23cm bream?
I dont take bream unless they are over 30cm and think 30cm for a bream is a
fair size.

[easyrider525]

well now, what a can of worms!!! everyone has a good point. well almost! but who is going to police these issues. i never take home less than 30cm and stress that to all my fishin companions at the time. but open your eyes people... we are not all the same. i have witnessed all types and colours doin the wrong thing. you will never stop mankind from doin the wrong thing, no mater how hard you try to educate him. and unless there is someone out there to enforce the legalities of length/bag limits, people will still catch and take home undersize fish and by the bucket load.
should there be a bag limit, my bloody oath!!!!!!!!!

[Maxg]

If you take the Gov figures on rec fish catch tonnages, we, Federally catch 45,000 tonnes of fish, which if related to the number of rec anglers Federally 4.5 million over the age of 5 it means that rec anglers collectively catch 10kgs of fish each year on average. So they mostly are not taking bucket loads willy nilly, but if you take into consideration that 10% of the anglers, because of their skills and dedication, the amount of fishing they do, catch 90% of the fish then who is getting bucket loads and who isn't. Most of the 4.5 million get nothing of consequence.
Which means that limits are really to curb that 10% and not the 90% because the 90% have no real impact at all.
There may be a few who do take to excess, but there are laws out there to punish them if caught. In WA criminals, whatever they do, are rarely caught, so on average there must be a few who do go over the odds. I guess its the same everywhere.
Max

[Graham_N_Roberts]

30 cm Bream in CQ would be good Oh OK ... so there may be a few up this way reaching that size, but I can't seem to get hold of them .... live yabbies, freshest of prawn, chook gut, mullet gut, lures . The blighters must hate freshos.

But too right, put a bag limit on them. There's a bag limit of ten on yellas, but I stop at two or three. That's plenty in any one's language.

[Gazza]

Geez Herby # ,just make it 100 over 40cms and be done with it #

Mate ,you and most of us , to me, seem to already have personal limitations of what is 'adequate' to take home.

So, it could be just me , but what's the problem ?? , cause I haven't seen 1 (one) post that ,points out the p-r-o-b-l-e-m #???

e.g. why SHOULDN'T the size be r-e-d-u-c-e-d ??? ,they're in plague proportions aren't they ??? ,and eating a lot of "fishfood" # aren't they......... #

Now that's a problem ,isn't it [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

[Gazza]

Now a typical C & R response #,could be 35cms min. # #and bag of 2 #

Most 'personals' are in-between , but do you know why ??? , these limits are needed ??? , or is it just feel-good BS in your minds ???

[where_is_dave]

Which means that limits are really to curb that 10% and not the 90% because the 90% have no real impact at all.
Max

Good point, As one of the 90% I feel that a bag limit should be part of an holistic approach that also takes into account the environmental factors raised in another quote.
As someone fairly new to the rec fishing scene I find it very dissappointing that anyone would take more than they need for a feed. >
Has any research been done into quantifying the pressure that the bream fisheries are actually under?
In short there should be a bag limit. 10-20 seems reasonable. Ohh and up the size a tad as well that may get some of us 90% into some snodgers.

[jockey]

Maria if you just want to talk fishing then don't drop racist comments.

[Maria]

I find it extremely humorous that you still wish to antagonize the topic.

Jockey, if you wish to dissect what I say and try to find some inkling of racial slander in there to incite an argument from, then you must lead a very uneventful life. It's obvious that the ensuing argument you provoke is something you thrive on or get some satisfaction out of – this is evident in other threads too. In future, either read my posts more carefully before making outlandish comments, or as I said, look for your arguments elsewhere.

I will attempt to elucidate the topic for the benefits of your comprehension.

"To me, regardless of what species, if you do that - you're on the same level as our 'northern friends' that undertake the same practices with the same mindset."

PLEASE NOTE THE BOLD AND ITALICS AROUND CERTAIN PARTS OF THAT SENTENCE. THAT’S THE DARK BLACK STUFF WITH THE SLOPEY APPEARANCE.

By saying that, I infer our northern friends (which by all means does NOT necessarily denote Asians, as Max said) CONDUCTING THOSE PRACTISES. How can you draw the conclusion, that by me saying that, I'm “tarring all Asians with the same brush”?

I never made mention of the word "Asian"…it was the first conclusion you came to though. Shit….maybe you’ve deeply offended me by making that statement. So should I now slam you as racist for drawing that generalisation?

By saying CONDUCTING THOSE PRACTISES, I mean our “northern friends” who engage in rather insatiable and sometimes illegal fishing methods. I simply included the northern friends bit as it stood for a well known and understood example for most readers. It wouldn’t matter if it was a bloke from Papua New Guinea hauling a 3km drag net around, taking hundreds upon hundreds of fish. It wouldn’t matter if it was a bloke from far eastern Russia doing the same thing – the principle is the same and that was the point I was trying to make. At no stage whatsoever did I ever make any mention or reference to Asians. Furthermore, I certainly did suggest ALL Asians conduct bad fishing practices – that was YOUR assumption.

For crying out loud man, grow up. I’m not going to prance around in posts taking every precaution to avoid collisions with your ignorance. Your ridiculous claims only illustrate the level of your absurdity, and further more, I’m certainly not going to tread lightly to avoid stepping on your delicate little politically minded toes.

Ben

[CHRIS_aka_GWH]

i won't keep a bream under 30cm - there's enough around of that size to keep me happy - 10 at that size would be enough.

I think you'll find the research shows they pretty much have the bream formula right with min. size etc. They are the pigeons of the sea & exist pretty happily with development & being snag dwellers avoid the inshore trawlers nets for the most part.

[Maxg]

As with any size limit daily bag system, it infers that you release all fish under size and outside the bag limit. That being the case, the Authority should ensure that the best release practise should be advertised and anglers should adhere to those practises. Regardless of how tough the fish are,like old army boots or like tissue paper, there will be a release mortality rate, and you can argue all you like about this, but we all do not do it correctly, and for every angler that does there are hundreds who do not.
The greater the number of "do nots" the higher the mortality rate, its obviously a qualitative thing, and also a quantitative thing. And of course the "do's" will fight to the death the idea that there is a release mortality rate.
In any case angling itself presents a serious problem for fish, bream or otherwise simply because they do not have the brains to avoid it. If they did there wouldn't be fishing, because they would give it a miss.
In any case, I guess it depends on the angler, or the average Joe fishing for a feed. But there should be limits, if only to curb those who would take everything, like us olds were supposed to do in the days of no regulations and plenty.
People keep referring to that time, but I'd like to remind those guys that the greatest damage to the system occured after the sportfishing revolution took place, simply because rather than a few people taking a lot it became a great number taking a few. The cumulative effect, along with the expanding commercial effort world wide caused a disaster.
In the dims there were no 4.5 million anglers, and no 45,000 tonnes of Rec caught fish. Not even half that, because population numbers were much lower.
All of which means that as we get greater populations the effects on the fishery will be much greater and the need to have very low bag limits will probably kill the sport. Max