Gold Coast Tailor

[jezz11]

Afternoon all.

Hows the taile fishing on the coast? Any chopper tailor around?

[bondy99]

There might be but no one is saying as yet

[jezz11]

Thanks Chaps,

We've just had a long weekend, and there was no real opportunity to head down and try for myself with this weather.. They will be there - perhaps later in the season - hopefully not to far away. Question is when and how big will the schools be.

[bondy99]

MudRiverDan,

Which part of the coast you have been that's been raped and plundered? I'm sure most places have been accept the remote and highly inaccessible areas.

Bondy

[wayno60]

jezz,
Around the end of the north wall and in the north channel but not in plague proportions yet.

[MudRiverDan]

Well im glad to report there is nothing of that proportiion going on up here in Brisbane.



Cheers

[Tailorfisho78]

Dan

Well said. Once again sorry if I upset you. Ok lets all move on now, so where are the Tailor??

[MudRiverDan]

Dan

Well said. Once again sorry if I upset you. Ok lets all move on now, so where are the Tailor??


Strange, maybe they are late.

The water down that way is still quite warm I notice, maybe the colder currents will bring them.

Cheers

[nigelr]

Be interesting to see what happens in the lead-up to the next full moon, taking into account conditions resulting from the last 2 weather events, ie how much (if any) fresh is in the surf, how much the beach conditions have been changed by the large swells etc, and where the baitfish are at, of course!

[bondy99]

Yes, it will be interesting to see what happens, I hope the winds and big seas ease ebate for a lengthy period.

Bondy

[jezz11]

Im hoping when the westerly winds come in full and things calm down with this erratic weather, schools may start to come through. Also as highlighted above perhaps water temp is not there yet. Lets see.. I might have a crack on the weekend.

Cheers

[bondy99]

jezz11,
You will do better with a Southerly wind or South Easter wind, providing you have white water. Westerlies tend to flaten sea out and makes water too clear. Tailor are ambushers . Thats my experience.

Bondy

[bondy99]

Come on tailor, old painless is waiting for you

[seastorm]

I had a mate who fished offshore from the Seaway about 2 weeks ago would have only been 4-5km out found a good show on the sounder, dropped down and was getting 60cm tailor, bagged out in 10 min

[bondy99]

I had a mate who fished offshore from the Seaway about 2 weeks ago would have only been 4-5km out found a good show on the sounder, dropped down and was getting 60cm tailor, bagged out in 10 min

I got my rod, starting to get over a head cold so when are we going? Bondy

[Tailorfisho78]

ok guys

Sounds like you all have the basics right regarding tides, wind moons blar blar! There is one really big factor that you are all missing, baitfish?? Tailor are a schooling fish as you might already know and you will always get a few loners swimming around by themself but on the whole there needs to be good amounts of bait in the water to bring them into the surf gutters. Your can have the perfect conditons for Tailor but if the bait schools aren't hanging around chances are you will not find the tailor schools. If you remember back in the old school days when we all learnt about the FOOD CHAIN! Small fish get eaten by big fish, big fish get eaten by bigger fish, bigger fish get eaten by bigger fish again and so on and son on.

[frankgrimes]

Few in the Seaway...nth wall always seems to hold them....need a boat though

Mick

[bondy99]

Yeah, I know that about baitfish, its only logical

I'm keen to get some for me and the old bloke, anyone got a boat to take an old salt out?

Bondy

[frankgrimes]

I'm keen to get some for me and the old bloke, anyone got a boat to take an old salt out?
Bondy

Get across to Sth Straddie (water taxi/ferry etc from Runaway Bay/Marina mirage etc) if you dont have a boat...fish the nth seaway wall

[Bronson]

Tailor came through where i was fishing about a week ago bagged out in about 30-40 minutes only choppers just legal size.
in case anyones interested in where i was fishing was deep into one of the gold coast canals (where all the baitfish are;D;D)
find the bait and you find the fish.


Thanks bron

[ozlongboarder]

Have you guys noticed a decline in the tailor numbers over the last few years?

This time of year, Lake Macquarie (NSW) is usually full of them. But not so for the last few years. They have been few and far between.

Is it the same further north? Rumor has it the tailor are being netted and exported to .......asia. As a result, not as many for us amateurs.

[nigelr]

I stand to be corrected but I think it is illegal for commercial netters to target tailor.........funny thing ozlongboarder but up here, although the numbers have declined very, very considerably over the last 30 years, there seems to be bigger fish about than used to be the case; certainly they are thin on the ground though. Schools of choppers are nowhere near as common as they were 30 years ago. I remember thinking that the initiative some years ago that did something to restrict the take of tailor from Fraser (sorry, very vague on the details of this now) actually had a positive effect on tailor quality, if not quality, hereabouts at least.
Having said that, back then you could bet on the tailor coming in to the river on the full moon in June. Last 15 - 20 years or so, serendipity seems to play the major part on when they rock up; certainly they follow the baitfish (garfish, whitebait, frogmouths etc) so maybe something is happening to the baitfish ......ahem.......
Cheers.

[Tailorfisho78]

Tailor are still being netted on the east coast of Australia despite many efforts to stop it. As for Fraser Island they only net hook point and the far northern tip around sandy cape. As for other surf beaches in SE Qld it is open slatter! If you think the netters are only netting Mullet you need to get your head out of the sand as these guys take what ever is on offer as "BY CATCH" There are alot of factors in the declining numbers of Tailor and other fish stocks but netting is the single biggest problem facing future generations. (And commericial fishing) as the old saying goes, "if it isn't broken, don't fix it!" Well sorry to say and I think alot of us weekend warriors will agree its not broken, its totally ####ed up??

[MudRiverDan]

Tailor are still being netted on the east coast of Australia despite many efforts to stop it. As for Fraser Island they only net hook point and the far northern tip around sandy cape. As for other surf beaches in SE Qld it is open slatter! If you think the netters are only netting Mullet you need to get your head out of the sand as these guys take what ever is on offer as "BY CATCH" There are alot of factors in the declining numbers of Tailor and other fish stocks but netting is the single biggest problem facing future generations. (And commericial fishing) as the old saying goes, "if it isn't broken, don't fix it!" Well sorry to say and I think alot of us weekend warriors will agree its not broken, its totally ####ed up??

I'm having a rough guess but I would bet new technology has enabled exports to Asia on smaller scales allowing hauls to become profitable again.

I have good info from a guy who works for AQUIS that we get all the crap and most of our good seafood gets exported to Asia.

The whole ''fresh produce for Aussie plates'' is a load of old bollocks...

We get the fish that John West rejects.

As far as netting SEQ and North NSW goes some local told me they hit the beaches just before a certain organised fishing competition takes place down south...

On the other hand I managed to hook one that slipped the nets this morning, poor fish was alone and confused and had taken to living it rough with Flatheads..

81253

[bondy99]

Frankgrimes,

Done that before, they operate different hours to me and I'm not into camping on that island overnight. With ones own vessel you came and go as one pleases.

Bondy

[bondy99]

MudRiverDan,

Thanks, but I had already know that to be the case, it's the same as beef, we export our top A Grade meats to overseas and heavily subsidised and only have less than B grade meat return...I'm no rocket scientist but one can tell the difference. Seafood is no different unless its freshly caught and sold direct from a trawler and not from wholesaler / retailer where the item could have been much older, inferior with shelf life diminished

It's Joe Citizen i.e. the people that don't fish and upperty snobs would not know any different....ooohhh

Bondy

[Slider]

It seems that the 'hidden' population of tailor that Fisheries are relying on to recruit, are still hiding. Either that, or there never was a hidden population to rely on and the researchers who discounted hyperstability as being a factor got it wrong and stocks are just very low. Or another possibility is that the remaining population of tailor are predominantly migrating offshore to avoid fishing pressure - as is known to be the case to at least some degree.

My opinion is that there is a combination of factors - stocks are very low and a predominantly offshore migration of the remaining fish is occurring - and there never was a hidden population and hyperstability is alive and well.

On baitfish presence - on the Noosa North Shore we have had lots of baitfish shoal up in the surf zone in the last couple of years and the tailor have not been present, which would never have occurred even 5 years ago, let alone previous to that. Tailor on a northern spawning migration do not necessarily require baitfish presence to spawn in surf gutters. Their instinct is to spawn first of all and feeding is a secondary priority - like pretty well all species. This is why it can be difficult to get spawning tailor, or tailor preparing to spawn, to take baits or lures.
Before these last swells, there was a lot of bait in the surf in front of Teewah and the odd school of small dart were feeding on them, but there were not any tailor amongst the bait - once again.

The point is, that people have been claiming that bad tides, or too much swell, or poor gutter formations, or not enough exposed rocks, or whatever, have caused their poor results over the last few years, when the reality is that the tailor are not really available any more like they were.

I could write another 15000 words on this topic but I'll save it for the doc I'm currently preparing into the ins and outs of netting and the 'non-consumptive effects' that it causes to species pops. These non-consumptive effects, or non-lethal effects, or trait mediated responses, are anticipated to cause as many, or more fish mortalities in overfished species as does the actual killing of fish in nets, by recs or through natural predation by larger species. This is particularly the case in migratory pelagic species that have a smaller size - at - age through phenotypic plasticity/genetic or evolutionary change - as is the case with tailor - though the actual reasons for the smaller size - at - age in tailor is unknown, but the result is the same irrespective of which and the cause is always overfishing.

[rando]

Simple solution.
Legislate that beach haulers have to replace what they take. If their license says they can take 10 tons they have to put back an equivalent amount of juveniles to produce 10 tons of mature fish .
This guarantees they have an industry and creates new employment opportunities for aqua culture to replace the harvest. Everybody wins.

[Slider]

There is potential for that to work Rob, but - aquaculture raised larvae/fish do not have innate antipredator responses that wild raised larvae/fish are born with. This means that as few as 1 hundredth the number of larvae will survive in the wild to legal size in aquaculture raised fish compared to wild raised fish (Atlantic salmon). Therefore the pros would have to contribute as many as 100 times the number of juveniles to achieve 10 tonnes of harvestable product than would wild spawning fish. However, there is also potential for aquaculture raised juveniles to be 'trained' with antipredator responses prior to release to the fishery - which has been demonstrated in several species but particularly Atlantic salmon.

And - if the netters are still taking fish from the beach after contributing the juveniles, then area avoidance of netted regions will still take place, migrations and spawning are still altered, smaller size - at - age still occurs and the non-consumptive effect is that it wouldn't be worth the cost and effort and especially after low survival rates of aquaculture raised juveniles is considered. Not to mention the fact that, from a recreational fishing perspective, fish are still avoiding the nets in the surf and we are no better off at all.

There is only one method of attack that will work, and that is to create no netting areas that take into account the migratory and spawning habits of species and have appropriate bag and size limits for recs based on accurate biomass estimates - and not budgeting on 'hidden' populations which seems very unprecautionary. For tailor, the size limit must be increased to 40cm as recommended to FQ in the only recent available research on tailor conducted in 2004, so that more 1 and 2 year old fish are given the opportunity to spawn prior to capture. And when 80% of legally sized fish are estimated to be captured annually (2004 research), then this apsect would appear to be rather important - even for hidden fish.
Well, there is another way - marine parks where no fishing occurs which would work, but based on the available evidence of fish returning to rec only areas after nets have been banned, most likely unnecessary and not in the interests of our economic health.

However, there are potentially difficulties with reviving tailor stocks. If an evolutionary change has occurred in tailor to cause smaller size - at - age which is distinctly possible or even probable, then it can take as many as 20 or more generations for these evolutionary changes to be reversed under NO fishing pressure and recovery can be extremely slow or non-existent. As stated in the 2004 research - "if the population's ability to reproduce is not better protected, a single year of low recruitment, could necessitate dramatic management measures. If a recruitment downturn were to happen in the tailor fishery, under current management and fishing pressure, there is a strong chance that the fishery would need a complete closure for several years to recover, and even then recovery would be uncertain".

That statement horrifies me, when in the same paper, such a heavy reliance is being placed on a hidden population to recruit.

Quick note: an evolutionary change to a 30% reduction in size - at - age has been demonstrated to occur inside 4 generations.

[MudRiverDan]

How about the baits schools?
No doubt they are being netted, this would greatly reduce the size and the reproduction of the fish.

Cheers

[nigelr]

Interesting point MRD IMHO; fror example years ago one would see fresh whitebait for sale at the local co-op, meant for the table as opposed to bait.
Personally I haven't seen it on sale locally to that extent for some years. Don't know whether that reflects people not eating so much whitebait these days, or that it is being sold OS or for another usage. Obviously the co-op will sell to best advantage.......
I suspect the 'bait'fish market has undergone a considerable increase in demand, for one reason or another.

[philthyphil]

good on ya mate its sad but all 2 true . people mostly claim racism when faced with an unpalatable truth

[chris69]

Hi there Slider you must know were the tailor research is being done on the goldcoast or was being done,there is a pond that they have been keeping tailor to measure there growth,when they were put in there they injected dye in them,do you no weither the research is still being done in that spot,cheers chris.

[Slider]

Not necessarily Dan - I'll try to clarify, but I hope everyone takes into account that the scenarios that I'm working on are quite complex and can't possibly be summarised in a few paragraphs. The brevity of these posts and the lack of thorough explanation leaves me open to holes being exploited by any detractors - and that's fine, but hit me with questions if you see such holes and I'll endeavour to answer the questions.

Firstly I need to explain a principle of fisheries management that is universally adopted. That is, when a population is harvested and their numbers reduced, the remaining population, in theory, will have greater food resources to share, competition is reduced and the average size and body mass of these fish should be greater. And this is often the case.

However, it appears that the chronic threat of predation, and the avoidance of predation or predation threat by prey to particularly nasty and voracious predators such as nets that are a 'novel' (introduced) predator that target species which do not have an innate and appropriate antipredator response to the novel predator, and which causes population losses and subsequent stress that reduces growth rates, size - at - age, fecundity (reproductive ability) and which can be compounded by maladaptive antipredator responses such as migrating, or species 'shifts', to habitats that have less predators (nets), but also have less food resources. Less energy in means less energy devotion to growth, or reproduction or some other bodily function or activity that requires energy.


These traits seem to be universally adopted by species that have been overfished and have an ecological basis of fact in that all organisms in all ecosystems match the intensity of the threat of predation with an equally intense antipredator response. Natural predators can't cause these things to occur unless there is an excessive population of predators which causes chronic predation threat to their prey.

When humans harvest the biggest and most valuable species first, we are taking away the natural predators of the baitfish, which, providing there are adequate food resources, will cause population growth and bigger baitfish. But also to be considered, is that when the natural predator is taken away, often another natural predator or an invasive predator will take the place of the harvested predator. This can keep the baitfish population down, or in many cases with invasive predators, reduce the prey population due to not having suitable antipredator responses to the invasive predator that they are not experienced at avoiding or eluding.

So, in answer to your question, the baitfish growth situation is dictated by how heavy the fishing pressure is and if there are maladaptive antipredator responses being adopted, whether an invasive or alternative natural predator arrives on the scene, and on food resources that are available and accessible to the baitfish.

I am not aware of any changes to baitfish species growth rates or size - at - age or of overfishing in Australian waters that would cause maladaptive antipredator responses. That's not to say that it isn't happening and is something we have to manage very carefully.

It seems that the world wide population of mac tuna is increasing and this would be due, I expect, to poor market value causing low exploitation and with a 'released' population of baitfish to feed on. Similarly, grinners, have benefited from less mackerel predators and increased food resources - until the ring netting of spanish mackerel was banned and their population began to rebound which has reduced grinner pops. Australian salmon are another beneficiary of prey 'release' as their netting reduced and tailor and other predatory species' populations declined.

I would expect that there will be several species showing changes to growth rates etc in Australian waters and I would be surprised if grey mackerel aren't one of these. It would be interesting to hear from Jonno on this one.

If there are other species showing signs of changing (reducing) growth rates or size - at - age, then we should have real concerns for those species because they are being overfished - not sustainably fished - overfished. This is the case for tailor.

Then there is the argument that recs take more tailor than nets and NSW has banned tailor netting and therefore recs are responsible for the overfishing. It doesn't quite work that way, but I'll save that aspect for another post.

Also - to clarify why reduced size - at - age of fish causes population decline: Smaller fish produce smaller and less robust eggs which turn into smaller and less healthy larvae which results in smaller and less healthy fish at maturity and greater mortality at all ages compared to the offspring that large fish produce. (Large fish are more fecund than small fish). In the case of tailor, which according to the existing research, has very few fish over 3 yrs old swimming in the ocean, then the vast majority of eggs are being produced by small fish with the above repercussion. This is compounded by the 35cm size limit and the percentage of harvested fish that have spawned at least once and also maladaptive antipredator responses.

[Slider]

Chris, don't know about that research, but Fisheries have to get to the bottom of whether the reduced size - at - age of tailor is caused by phenotypic plasticity or evolutionary change. Sounds like that is what Fisheries are trying to do there. At the end of the day though, it doesn't really matter which is the cause as overfishing causes both and the only way to rectify that is to stop the overfishing of tailor and protect the spawning stock from overfishing and maladaptive predatory responses.

[chris69]

That interesting Slider as the blue fish in the USA grow much larger than they do here sort of the opposite to what happens here,i seems as though the only solution is to have a yearly ban on tailor ever 2 or 3 years and see what happens,they could probbly pick a different species every year as a no take ,now that could not hurt.

[rando]

Slider
I am an advocate of put and take.
The most economical expression of this in my view is that fish are spawned in large quantity and released into their spawning habitat at the earliest possible stage ( to avoid the cost associated with "grow out") Mimicking wild spawned fish. The survivors should then have most if not all the instincts/responses of wild populations.
I should point out that I have no data to substantiate these beliefs .Just my ruminations over many years of how to address the problem.
To me this is a logical solution. I have been told that none of the fish released as i suggest would survive.
I find that hard to believe, and in any case even if natural mortality was higher in aquaculture raised fish, surely it is a numbers game and the solution to that is greater numbers of released fish


cheers
rando

[nigelr]

Personally less pressure on the wild stocks sounds like a good strategy. As you may know, the commercial take of salmon has been approved (within certain limits) here in NSW; again the old 'bycatch' issue raises it's head, and compounding that we have the issue of netting and altered behaviours as detailed by Slider.
I don't have a problem with a salmon take, the things have become almost of plague proportions, to the detriment of other species, IMHO.
But again IMHO, it seems this is a complex problem and all the factors mentioned play a role. Hopefully the 'authorities' will take very careful note of Slider's hard work and come up with some effective action.

[Slider]

I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't be done Rob, but I believe, as do many scientists in the field, that maintaining wild stocks is a preferable method. The view is that placing a reliance on stocking reduces managers intent of maintaining the wild fish pops. There are also concerns about genetic diversity of hatchery reared fish, but this may in the near future be solvable, I'm led to believe, through surrogacy - implanting near related fish with eggs and sperm. I know very little about this, but at this point, yellow tailed kingies are being implanted with southern bluefin tuna eggs and sperm to produce tuna larvae for aquaculture.

Introducing juveniles at the latest possible stage would avoid predation of smaller juveniles which are more vulnerable. I still can't see that it's viable though given the number of fish that would need to be hatchery reared and maintained - penned for longer periods and fed on fish for longer periods. And would we be introducing disease to the wild fish as has occurred with Atlantic salmon??

Chris, the bluefish in the US have always grown larger than our tailor which hasn't any correlation with reduced size - at - age of tailor. From memory, there are no issues with smaller - size - at - age of bluefish, but there is also a natural offshore spawning that occurs in the US which may be the reason for that - or they haven't overfished the stock - and from what I can gather, bluefish are still in relatively healthy numbers.

It does seem logical that if we banned the taking of tailor for a few years, then numbers would surely rebound. However, I'm not convinced that this is an overall effective strategy. While beach hauling still occurs along most of our beaches, there will always be some tailor bycatch which causes tailor to still see nets as a predator and they will take avoidance reactions to the nets and maintain an offshore migration which is maladaptive. This may, over a period of a few years, alter back to a conventional inshore migration due to there being less fishing pressure inshore on tailor, but there are reasons why they may not also....

Tailor, mullet, bream, tarwhine, dart and all species that are taken by beach seine are all of the same 'prey guild'. That is they have a common predator. It is well documented that members of the same prey guild will respond to the alarm cues of other members. For instance - tailor will take an avoidance reaction to alarm cues emitted by netted mullet, or bream, dart etc. I can verify that this is the case due to having seen various species take avoidance reactions to other netted species alarm cues - and particularly tailor to mullet alarm cues. Therefore, providing that tailor were still an incidental catch in nets intended for other species, they will still take avoidance reactions and the non-consumptive effect will still cause a high mortality rate - and beach anglers will still be catching bugger all off the beach due to all prey guild members avoiding dangerous locations.

This is why I am opposed to designating certain species as being rec only take species. I certainly believe that there are gains to be made in improving stocks of these individual species, but the non-consumptive effect of other species being netted by the same netting practice, means the gains are slow and the unavoidable avoidance reactions by prey guild members means that land based recs are little better off.

I firmly believe that the safest and surest method of rebuilding tailor stocks is to create a stress free migratory path (as much as possible) and net free major spawning locations. Eastern and northern Fraser should not be netted at all, but if we want the tailor to spawn at Fraser, then the beaches south of Fraser can't be netted either or the migratory path away from these beaches will keep them away from Fraser to some degree - certainly for a few years until the species recognises that inshore Fraser is safe. Remembering that Teewah and Rainbow Beaches to the immediate south of Fraser are also major tailor spawning grounds - or were.

By creating these net free regions - and I'm not saying just Teewah, Rainbow and Fraser - for tailor recovery, other prey guild members will benefit at the same time. The only species not drastically reduced along all of our beaches are flathead, but all other species have become rare. These species are important commercial and recreational species and must be protected from collapse - if that isn't already occurring. Mullet seem to be hanging in there however and I have ideas as to how mullet can still be harvested without detrimental impacts on mullet or the other prey guild members - and it's not netting them from the beaches as currently occurs.

So net free regions is the only way we can encourage population growth in all the relevant species, which will spill over into netted regions and provide a healthier commercial fishery and a vibrant recreational fishery - as is evidenced by the commercial inshore fishery in NSW since the creation of rec fishing havens. It will take time to rebuild stocks due to their low levels now, but they will rebuild as is evidenced by net free regions all around the world.

Recs need to play the game also though. Current bag and size limits of tailor are absurd given the state of the fishery and the same can be said for all of the other surf species - other than flathead. No doubt many anglers would disagree, but there is ample evidence of recreational impacts on species pops that can't be ignored.

[Slider]

It certainly is a complex problem Nigel and we need to get our collective heads around the problem in order to sort it. Ignoring it ensures that we cannot possibly maintain any of our fisheries to an appropriate standard.

I'm pretty sure that Fisheries don't want to know too much about it unless suitable pressure is applied for them to know about it. The reason being is that if it was recognised that nets are spooking the fish (inshore and offshore) that recs would like to catch and non-consumptive effects are real and populations are being affected, then they feel they will have a hell of a job on their hands in trying to rectify the situation. I recognise that what I'm bringing to the table is an extraordinarily difficult issue to deal with appropriately and the commercial sector have perfectly understandable fears of the repercussions to their industry of addressing the issue - and they think it's all crap. However, my intention is for long term sustainable commercial fisheries as well as healthy recreational fisheries that have side benefits to seabirds, dolphins, sharks and turtles. It can be done and the expertise exists for it to be done well.

The problem is that there is a cost associated with the creation of net free regions and nobody in a position of influence has tried to understand what I and many scientists are stating is occurring. However, I have excellent evidence to fully support my claims now and the doc I'm working on will be explicit in spelling all of this evidence out, which should make it easier for comprehension of all the facts and combined with the knowledge that already exists, allow for effective strategies to be developed.

I agree Nigel that there is little harm in netting salmon and there are potential benefits. Reducing salmon numbers would be beneficial for baitfish stocks and probably in reducing predation on important species' larvae/juveniles by a large salmon population. These factors could more than offset the bycatch issue. I would have a different opinion however if there weren't net free regions in NSW and a ban on the taking of tailor. Though, it would be preferable if rec fishing havens weren't predominantly in estuarine waters and included more open beaches where some key species spawn and feed and if Qld didn't allow tailor netting to the current degree (or at all) and size and bag limits adjusted to more suitable levels.

[two dogs]

Thanks for taking the time out to comment so extensively Slider... the off shore migration is certainly plain to see on the gold coast over the past few years.

Forgive me if I am over simplifying or muddying the waters, but was the plight of the australian salmon in NSW a similar story? And hence can we take any encouragement from the recovery of this species and the restrictions enforced.

[Slider]

I don't have an intimate knowledge of the salmon two dogs but can speculate to some degree.

If the salmon weren't fished down to dangerous levels - say 50% or less of virgin - then there most likely wasn't any evolutionary change occur to prevent a relatively rapid recovery from happening when the fishing pressure was relaxed. And eastern Australian salmon inhabit from northern NSW to western Victoria/eastern S.A. and Tasmania. There is no singular spawning migration of the salmon that can be disrupted and various levels of fishing pressure in the various locations of the 3 different states that have salmon stocks - so the ability to replenish overfished regions with fish from less fished regions is probable. Salmon spawn in surf gutters through the summer months when very little beach hauling is done, so they have a virtually uninterrupted spawning season whether they are a target or not.

Tailor on the other hand have a singular (historically & ideally) spawning migration that occurs in autumn and winter when beach hauling is at its peak for the entire length of their migration - so a very interrupted spawning migration with extermely high mortality of spawning fish.

In NSW where tailor pops have fallen to as low as 40% of virgin (or probably lower now), the competition from tailor that is a factor here in the feeding ability of salmon and lesser predation on salmon by tailor, has probably assisted salmon to recover fairly quickly, and baitfish pops have facilitated this to occur. Salmon are also a less desirable table fish than tailor, so rec pressure is lower and catch and release more common.

But if an evolutionary change has occurred in tailor to cause smaller size - at - age, (and there is great debate about this aspect of evolutionary vs phenotypic plasticity around the world) then the recovery of tailor pops is certain to be slow - if at all. If it is phenotypic plasticity, recovery would be faster. But if salmon stocks remain high despite a return to their netting, the competition that they create with tailor in NSW waters will further slow to some degree the recovery. If beach hauling of mullet and other species under the current arrangements continues and fishing pressure on tailor is not relaxed, then there will be no recovery and a collapse of the fishery is assurred and I believe within 5 years - if not happening now.

Then there's coastal algal blooms to contend with that have predominantly affected Teewah, Rainbow and eastern/northern Fraser - the main tailor spawning grounds. A return to El Nino will inevitably cause more severe blooms, though we've still had them with La Nina but perhaps not as bad. These blooms hinder the spawning and feeding habits of tailor in the region and are thought to exacerbate non-consumptive effects.

Personally Two Dogs, I don't believe that we can gain any confidence whatsoever from the salmon recovery unless changes to beach netting practices occur very soon.

[Slider]

Why nets are the major problem for tailor - part 1.

There are several reasons why fish populations can fall. These include fishing pressure (rec and pro), habitat destruction, reduced water quality, prey population losses, changing ocean currents or disease.

For tailor we can immediately rule out disease, changing ocean currents and loss of prey pops as being any sort of factor. Habitat loss is a potential due to mangrove destruction which can impact on juvenile tailor which spend the first 12 months of their lives in estuaries. Reduced water quality can also be a factor for obvious reasons. However, if either of these 2 factors were significant, then why is it that Sydney Harbour has seen such a remarkable return of various fish pops including tailor since the banning of nets in the harbour due to water quality issues? I do believe that algal blooms are a significant factor, but we cannot and will not solve that problem in the foreseeable future, so there is little value in putting too many eggs in that basket as the tailor population will collapse before any tangible results from human efforts can be attained in this regard.

That leaves fishing pressure as the most likely, logical and to be expected reason for the poor state of tailor stocks that we are now all seeing.

Recreational and commercial fishing pressure is enormous on tailor stocks - over 80% of all legally sized fish are estimated to be harvested by rec or pro fishers each year - which is outrageous. Recs are estimated to be taking in the order of 3 to 4 times as many tailor as pros - which I have no reason to doubt.

Therefore it is fairly simple to say that recs are the more significant problem and on the face of it who could argue.

Well, I can.

Research into pre and post establishment of rec fishing havens in Lake Macquarie and Tuross Lake show a significant increase in number (3 times) and size of tailor post establishment compared to pre in both locations. So if recs were the more significant factor, why then has both the number and size of tailor increased after the banning of netting? It is also significant that the same occurred in the majority of species in these studies with squid, yellowfinned leatherjacket and 1 or 2 other non - significant species bucking the trend but with size comparisons in these species generally favourable post establishment. There are rational arguments why the species that have bucked the trend have declined in number - relating to ecosystem health and invasive species.

In 2 separate estuaries in Nth Qld - 1 that is closed to all fishing and 1 that is only commercially netted. The size and number of fish in the closed section is very significantly greater in the closed estuary than in the commercially fished estuary.

Of course, the combination of rec and pro fishing pressure has to be considered. If it is the combination of both sectors that is causing population losses and the losses are serious, as with tailor, then it stands to reason if we are to address this serious problem, that one or the other, or both, has to be either reduced in intensity or removed.

As stated by the facts presented above, we know that commercial net pressure on its own reduces both number and size of tailor (fish generally). And we know from the facts above that recs on their own do not reduce number and size of tailor (fish generally).

Given that recs are taking 3 to 4 times as many fish as pros, then the obvious action is to either remove recs from the eqasion or reduce the intensity of this pressure. I'm all for reducing the intensity via an increased size limit to 40cm and a reduced bag limit to no more than 10 or perhaps even lower - if we are to be serious about this. A higher bag limit at Fraser is nonsensical as Fraser is THE main spawning ground of tailor and the taking of spawning fish is something that has to be reduced.

I doubt that the prevention of recs taking tailor at all is likely to be very acceptable to the huge numbers of recs that target tailor and thus would be political dynamite and non-palatable to the decision makers. Nor do I see that it is terribly beneficial to tailor stocks to do so.

Reducing the intensity of commercial netting won't work - see previous post #39.

Strategic removal of nets in appropriate locations would be my preferred option and I see this as preferrable to the banning of the commercial take as per NSW regulations - see previous post #39.

Part 2 will address the impact of commercial nets and the necessity to approach fisheries management on a whole of ecosystem basis, rather than an individual species approach.

[bondy99]

Slider,

You have written a lot of information on Tailor, are you doing a PhD?

Cheers, Bondy

[Matt_Campbell]

I'm all for reducing the intensity via an increased size limit to 40cm and a reduced bag limit to no more than 10 or perhaps even lower - if we are to be serious about this.

Lindsay do you have any info on the post-release survival of tailor caught by rec fishers?

[rando]

Slider
I have a vague recollection of hearing about collapsing bluefish population on the American east coast and some pretty drastic responses.This is a vague memory of quite some years ago.

I looked up the bluefish population in usa,,,link provided
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/op/bluefish/

[Slider]

After all the controversial statements I've made in this thread Matt, is that all you can find to question? I was sort of hoping that yourself or Jono might be able to throw a few curly ones at me. After all, I'm putting all this together with far, far fewer resources to work with than you guys have at your disposal.

Anyway - probably the same info on post release mortality as yourself I expect Matt unless there is recent research available that was recommended be carried out in the 2004 research by Leigh and O'neill that I haven't seen. I'm familiar with bluefish research which is semi applicable to tailor and the W.A. research which was fairly poorly done.

It does occur to me - now - that if post release survival rates are of great concern to Fisheries in this era of catch and release, why haven't Fisheries addressed the issue through public education of post release mortality rates and correct fish handling techniques or addressed the issue of ganged hooks as suggested in Leigh and O'neill's paper?

Irrespective, I'm well aware that the mortality rate of released tailor could be as high as 50%, though that is a worst case scenario. And irrespective, a 50% survival rate of released tailor is 50% better than 100% dead fish in a bucket. So in real numbers - if we reduce the bag limit to 10 from 20 and increase the size limit to 40cm, then there are a minimum of 5 extra tailor that spawn multiple times per year, swimming in the ocean per angler that bags out at 10 fish compared to when they previously bagged out at 20. And based on estimated sizes of fish per annum that are available to the fishery at 35cm, something like an extra 12.5% (conservatively) of the total number of fish available to the fishery at a 40cm size limit and with 50% mortality rates of post release tailor, would be still swimming and breeding out there. And at a 40cm size limit, 100% of fish available to the fishery are sexually mature, which means that the released component that survive can all breed. Whereas at 35cm, something like 25 - 30% of released fish are immature and which are still vulnerable to the 80% harvest rate, of which only a small percentage of these fish will actually be provided with an opportunity to breed at all.

When it comes to commercial tailor netting, the post release survival rate is nil, and at a 35cm size limit, as many as 30% of the fish taken in nets have never had the opportunity to spawn.

Remembering that maturity of this species tends to be attained annually - ie. if they aren't sexually mature at 2 years of age and fall just short of 35cm in size by their 2nd spawning migration, then they are vulnerable to the fishery when they reach 35cm (which inevitably occurs during the feeding migration from late spring to late summer) with sexual maturity occurring prior to their 3rd spawning migration. So there's a mortality rate of immature fish during the summer months that isn't being built into the equasion.

Therefore, the combination of a decrease in bag limits and an increase in size limit, would see in the order of - this is a hard one - perhaps 25 - 30% more tailor swimming and breeding out there compared to the current arrangements.

With more time availability I could crunch these numbers more precisely, but I think they're in the ball park.

If we wish to address all causes of mortality, then I would suggest that post release survival rates probably pale into insignificance compared to potentially half of all tailor mortalities being caused by non-consumptive effects which are caused in a large part by commercial net fishing. Are you familiar with non-consumptive effects Matt? Are Fisheries familiar with non-consumptive effects?

[Matt_Campbell]

After all the controversial statements I've made in this thread Matt, is that all you can find to question? I was sort of hoping that yourself or Jono might be able to throw a few curly ones at me. After all, I'm putting all this together with far, far fewer resources to work with than you guys have at your disposal.


Lindsay
I can't comment because I have no experience in anything you've mentioned apart from the post-release survival issue. Your arguments are for people far above my head and I wouldn't dare throw curly ones at you as you're obviously more familiar with such things than I. I'll stick to pearl perch! My only comment would be to lobby industry groups for support for research.

[Slider]

No worries Matt. Just that I like to receive difficult questions as it gives me the opportunity to think about aspects that I may not have considered previously and to explain situations that I may not have presented well in the first instance. I hope you appreciate that your question enabled me to make points for all readers and isn't a personal dig - maybe a bit of one to FQ.

Probably should have sought support years ago, but wouldn't know who to approach. And it's only poverty. I do need a hydrophone though - and someone who knows how to use them.

[Slider]

No Bondy - it has been an evolving personal study that has gotten radically out of hand. Began when my family noticed in the 80s that there were never any fish available after a net had been shot anywhere along Teewah Beach. This didn't make any sense to us as how can fish possibly know about a net that's been shot 20kms away - for instance - and there was no way the pros had caught them all. Then I discovered in the late 90s that fish vocalise and that's when it became apparent that there must be communication occurring. Then Ern Grant told me that the "official definition of spooking in fish is chemical communication". But I didn't believe Ern because I'd seen a number of times, fish (tailor, mackerel, tuna, dart, mullet) that were kms from the net, spooking the instant that the netted fish began to panic in the net. Chemicals can't travel that fast. It was at that point (around 2002) that I bought a pc and started looking into the available research into alarm cues (audible, chemical and visual) and have been ever since and watching the surf for fish every day, fish behaviour around nets during the netting season, talking to others about their observations and doing my own angling surveys. I grew up fishing Teewah and have always done well in comparison to those around me - so my surveys weren't pointless. The sliders also provided insights into tailor behaviour that normal lures didn't and also allowed me to spend a million hours 'testing' them.

Now the fish have gone and 'somebody' has to do something about it, but Fisheries simply state "the fishery is sustainable". But a sustainable fishery doesn't deplete the fishery to the point where nobody can catch anything other than a few small dart. The bream disappeared years ago, tarwhine and whiting are caught in single digit numbers (occasionally) compared to the hundreds in the 7os and 80s and even dart are extremely thin on the ground. For tailor it was a case of it getting harder and harder every year over the last 10 years. Even 5 years ago I could go down and spin up 100 choppers in a day at times and beach a few 10 pounders each year. Now - I've caught 1 small chopper since about August last year. I don't try as hard these days because it's mostly a waste of time, but when the planets are alligned and the water looks like it should be holding fish, I'll work it - but I get nothing and nor is anyone else. So there's my motivation for finding out every tiny detail that could be a factor in why the fish have gone and accept that I am the somebody that has to do something about it. Then there's the terns, gannets, dolphins, sharks and turtles that are unwitting victims of all this and I know now how that all works and why beach netting kills these animals without them being caught in a net. 6 dead juvenile gannets on the beach in front of Teewah right now - all starved to death because there are no tailor to herd the bait to the ocean surface that the juv gannets have relied upon for possibly millions of years. Don't see dolphins really anymore cause there's no food for them and they need tailor to herd bait for them also and they love tailor. So they've gone to wherever they can get a feed, which these days is around the commercial and rec boats where they can scavenge it.

At this point I have some pretty hard evidence for everything I've been stating for years and I plan to use it and keep researching until Fisheries simply can't ignore me any more. And it is far from just the surf species affected - it is every commercially targeted species in the world that is affected by non-consumptive effects. And every recreational fishery is affected by nets and the spooking that they cause. The implications of all this are absolutely enormous.

[Slider]

Why Nets are the major problem for tailor - Part 2

As alluded to in my previous post, alarm cues are integral to the fish population dynamics in every aquatic ecosystem.

There are 4 types of alarm cue:

Audible alarm cue - most fish have the ability to vocalise and of the surf species in SEQ, I have confirmed that all species other than whiting, tarwhine and bream do vocalise, but these species are yet to be tested. However, gauging from otolith size, it is safe to say that they do vocalise. Generally vocalisations are achieved by drumming muscles against the swim bladder which acts as an amplifier. Vocalisations are at a lower frequency than that of whales and dolphins, but dolphins can hear fish vocalisations which is their primary method of prey location. They only use sonar when within close proximity of their prey and after their prey have stopped vocalising on detecting the presence of dolphins.
All fish when trapped in a net emit audible alarm cues and that can be thousands of fish at a time.

Chemical alarm cues - there are 2 types. Schreckstoff is the slimy stuff on the fish's skin that is released into the water on damage to the skin. Slight rubbing will release it. Schreckstoff is powerful stuff - 1 square cm of skin extract will permeate 58000 litres of water at least, and elicit antipredator responses from conspecifics (same species) and heterospecifics (dif species) that are in the same prey guild (common predator) each time that an experiment of this nature is performed in the conventional 58000 litre tanks used. Thousands of fish in a net release enormous quantities of screckstoff which moves with the currents and permeates massive volumes of water. Schreckstoff remains active in water for days.

Disturbance cues - are released by the fish when startled or alarmed via a urinary expulsion of ammonia. Though not as powerful in prompting antipredator responses in conspecifics or heterospecifics as schreckstoff, in combination with other alarm cues it is powerful enough to elicit antipredator responses from conspecifics and heterospecifics of the same prey guild on 100% of occasions.

Visual alarm cue - is the sight of conspecifics or heterospecifics of the same prey guild displaying antipredator behaviour. Visual alarm is believed to be nearly as significant as schreckstoff in triggering antipredator responses on its own and particularly powerful in combination with other alarm cues.

So when a net is shot and any of the conventional target species are netted, all 4 alarm cues are active. Audible alarm causes an initial flight reaction by fish nearby the net. It is believed that the nearby fish relay the audible alarm on to more distant fish as a result of being startled and visual alarm of fleeing fish confirms for all 'witnesses' that there is actual danger and an evacuation (antipredator response) required. All of these startled fish emit a disturbance cue. Schreckstoff drifts with the currents for days and ensures that fish moving into the area are warned that actual predation on prey guild members has occurred in the region. The combination of the 4 cues causes there to be extreme antipredator responses.

Surf species and open water species that aren't conventionally shelter users, as most freshwater and reef species are, use flight as their antipredator response. And because most of our beaches are netted, the flight direction is generally in an offshore direction. Offshore habitation of surf species places these fish in competition with species that they are not familiar with which results in high natural mortality rates. Habitation in offshore waters also takes the surf species away from their natural food resources leading to less energy intake with high mortality resulting and reduced fecundity.

Over time, surf species associate the various alarm cues with locations that are dangerous and eventually leads to long term avoidance of those locations. Long term avoidance effectively means that migrations, feeding and spawning locations are altered (tailor) leading to non-consumptive effects - which I've already covered to a degree.

From a land based recreational fishing perspective, the combination of alarm cues and altered migrations/spatial dynamics, means that surf species are rarely in the surf. It doesn't matter which species is netted as all prey guild members will evacuate and avoid the area.

It took some decades for all of these situations to manifest to the degree that is currently occurring, but occurring it is.

[Tailorfisho78]

ok guy there is some really good reading here but we are getting off the track alittle bit here, has anyone caught any good tailor over the weekend as I did here a few guys on the UHF on the way home last night talking about some good fish down the jumpinpin over the weekend.

[bondy99]

Tailorfisho78,

Nope, never been out since last trip. Limited to normal car as I don't have 4WD or boat for the better spots. Pin area always does well.

Bondy

[Hi tide]

Had a go at tweed over the weekend but only choppers around. I got only 2 at 40cm but hear there are many more sizeables south off the beach at Cabarita, Fingal and at Kingscliff near the bowls club so hopefully they will move their way up the coast soon.............

[bondy99]

Hi Tide,

I'm heading off to Fingal and trying another spot down Wooyung again. i'll be down there Thursday evening and probably stay until Friday morning, going to be a wet camp, too wet to boil a billy and have warmth from a fire I reckon.

Bond

[childers]

bondy , you might get a fish down there , few at Kingscliff i see

smaller surf there most of the time if Wooyung doesnt work out ,

use fresh slab baits like mullet thats never been frozen or Bonito etc for better fish , might even snag a Jew

Have fun

[bondy99]

Childers,

Thanks mate, going to try Wooyung first, I dont mind the showers or light rain, if the sea and swell pumps up then it might not be a good evening to have. I have salted down bonito as well as fresh mullet.

Problem with Kingscliff is sometimes it gets crowded, but would be better than that mongrel sand pumping jetty on the Gold Coast.

Bondy

[Bob62]

Quality work Slider. I hope that for the sake of future generations let alone our own that something is done to give the fish poplution a chance.

[Hi tide]

yeah i hear Kingscliff can get a bit crowded Bondy. The gen population and bowls club car park all too convenient for fishing not that there is much of a walk from the wooyung camp anyway. Had a bloke fishing off the rocks with bream gear and he somehow jagged a Jew - took him a while as he had to chase it over the rocks up to a beach spot to land it so as Slider says, you never know your luck.
Quite a few dolphins cruising around too Slider for those choppers and of course the nets.
Pretty tough fishing when they working them only a couple 100m from your rod but enough said on that.
stay dry this week

[mowerman]

Thanks Lindsay.
Always a good read.
But, you never know your luck.
Monday on Straddie. High tide around 12.30pm.
Just before 10 am I drove out to Flinders to see if I could scare up a feed of anything.

Right at the beach access track from Amity were the netters. Their net was half out of the water.
Looked like a couple of ton of mullet on the sand and at least the same still in the water.
First thought," this will be a waste of time' then, ' bugger it, I'm here now"
The only decent gutters were a 500 or so meter stretch from the netters to the south. All line of sight.

My daughter used the light gear with pippies so I had the heavy stuff with pillies.
I spent a fair bit of time rebaiting her line.In the 2 hours we were there she caught 16 whiting. 7 keepers.
I had time to get 4 tailor between 40 and 50cm.

The netters were still loading when we came back off the beach to Amity.

Just lucky I suppose.

Rod
.

[bondy99]

Hi tide,

Yeah, I try to avoid crowded places, but also try to avoid donut places too, cant be everywhere at once..and there's always someone saying...mate , you should have been here yesterday, they were on and thick as......I'd be a millionaire now , having a dollar each time I heard that saying.

Bondy

[bondy99]

mowerman,

I can relate to what you said about the netters, north straddie would be teaming with them. Someone told me the North Straddie mullet netters are Traditional owners or related. I dont know if that's correct or not.

Bondy

[Damned67]

Slider,
I really enjoy reading your well constructed posts. Have you published your observations and/or hypothesis in a scientific journal?
Publication will give your argument much more weight in regards to the 'powers-that-be'.
If your not a scientist yourself, that shouldn't preclude publication, as there would be avenues around that.
Simplest solution would be to 'co-author' a manuscript with an established marine biologist (which could be one of the US scientists involved in the Bluefish studies) who supports your argument/hypothesis.
You're clearly keeping an eye out for any research in the area, which would suggest you're reading/accessing the appropriate journals. In that case, write to the editor, with a drafted manuscript, outline your position, experience and observations, and ask for guidance regarding publication. Trust me, editors of scientific journals are supportive to that sort of contact/approach. Moreover, they're generally quite helpful. Without a strict scientific study, you're essentially publishing a hypothesis based on personal observations (supported by current literature ie literature regarding vocalisations). If the journal doesn't tend to publish that style of manuscript, the editor should direct you to one that does. And if the first journal you approach isn't interested in helping guide you through the process, move on to the next journal.
Of course, if you have published this work, then ignore everything I've said.

Cheers!

Edit: I should point out that I am not a marine biologist, nor do I know the field. I have, however, published scientific manuscripts and have experience with editors and editorial boards.

[bondy99]

I'll wait until the sea abates and weather not shitty.

Bondy

[Slider]

Unusual for catches near freshly shot nets that's for sure Mowerman - I haven't heard of it happening here in recent times, but it would no doubt happen and perhaps in some locations rather than others. It's been suggested that Moreton might suffer less from spooking and lesser netting intensity could be a possible reason. There can of course be any number of reasons why fish are where they are, and your account has been stored in my memory to hopefully get me a bit closer to the intricacies of why - from a commercial netting perspective.

I greatly appreciate your feedback and advice Damned. As of a month or 2 ago, my thought process is as you suggest - publish in a scientific journal under my own steam, or publish in collaboration with a marine scientist or behavioural ecologist etc. At this point I am putting together my own paper and have meetings scheduled with a suitably qualified scientist with a view to collaboration. The newly aquired evidence I have that further strengthens the hypotheses has caused me to be eager to achieve the aim one way or the other.
The difficulty I have encountered with the scientific community to date, is that there are very few individuals in the world who have a solid grasp of what I am talking about, and those that do are naturally fairly keen to publish on their own for obvious reasons - which is taking time. Finding a scientist anywhere in the world with a basic understanding of fish behaviour, alarm signals, behavioural ecology or commercial netting, who believes I am on to something, and has the time, inclination and funding to further my hypotheses, has proven to date to be unachievable.
The recreational fishing haven proposal obviously had a fair amount of exposure and I did receive some feedback from leading fish biologists within Australia which was all positive. But that document was not intended as a scientific doc and it was always my intention to follow up with one devoted to fish and another devoted to seabirds, dolphins and sharks. As much as it seems I am focused on the Noosa North Shore netting, my overall ambition is for appropriate research to occur in Australian waters and all netted locations to be assessed with fish behaviour and dynamics included as a matter of course.

I anticipate that I'll have a document that is specifically related to inshore commercial netting and resulting fish dynamics, completed within the next month or so and we'll see what happens from there.

Thanks again

Lindsay

[MudRiverDan]

Therefore, the combination of a decrease in bag limits and an increase in size limit, would see in the order of - this is a hard one - perhaps 25 - 30% more tailor swimming and breeding out there compared to the current arrangements.


Yes but first fisher-people actually have to bag out reasonably frequently for this to even look like an answer.

Fact is, most are catching nix...

[BLOOEY]

Some choppers cruising the broadwater at the moment falling for 6-7in trolled hardbodys. Ben

[MudRiverDan]

Truth is they are not late.. some time ago I posted about a fish lost on Bruns wall (shark), but at that time there was a guy there saying there were a few around of good size and he was using a large metal slug but caught none on the day,, this was two months ago.

I snagged one around the Brisbane river two weeks ago and it was pretty fat (not a chopper but not huge), (Photo is actually in this thread).

So they are here for sure, but as I would suspect they have been well hammered by nets.

Ha,, same for the squid in the bay come to think of it, people including myself were bagging 7- 10 good squids in an outing, then all of a sudden ...nothing,,, week after week,, nothing.

Needless to say you won't catch a bag of 10 anymore, lucky to get 1.

Cheers

[bondy99]

i see Tailor are back and great Australian Salmon, coooooooollllllll