Waldo's Bycatch Photos [Archive] - Ausfish fishing Australia, Australian Angling Forums

waldo35

21-03-2006, 12:14 PM

yes the fotos are from the gulf . no they are not mine although i have heaps of similar shots and not just banana fishing. no serene lady nothings been sorted at all. my estimates of bycatch to prawn ratio shown in those paricular shots wud be maybe a coupla hundred kilo of fish to 3-4 tonne of prawn. im not trying to disprove the fish on the beach at all just to offer an alternative to the 6k prawn 1 tonne fish hysteria that was echoing thru this site. dont let urselves be blinded by the green antifishing hysteria cos u 2 r in the sights.
and no jeremy it wasnt a river boat refer to webbys article for fotos of their by catch. funny how u guys will accept the word of an unnamed decky yet fotographic evidence is sum how faked or taken out of context.
blinded by preconcieved ideals or just unwilling to open ur minds to new possibilities.

waldo35

21-03-2006, 12:20 PM

and serene lady if ur suggesting that dereks posting of these fotos involved sum prawn transaction well mate i let u take that up w/ him as is no skin of my nose but im sure hed be unhappy at the suggestion. ud really argue that black was white wouldnt u.

dazza

21-03-2006, 10:11 PM

hi waldo,
is there any research that looks at trawling and bycatch survival rates.
are the thoughts behind exclusion devices, if the fish escape they must survive (it has to be better than landing on the sorting table) or xx% survive
there has been a bit done re survival rates in tagged fish etc which are pretty good.
i must commend you on enlightening us about trawling and industry practices. i will never agree that inshore beam and otter trawling is sustainable, but i think for the survival of out respective "industries" rec and commercial guys need to find a common ground becuse like it or not we both share a common intrest and face the same threat
cheers
dazza

waldo35

22-03-2006, 08:35 AM

dazza thanx for ur openess and willingness to discuss rationally matters that have [4 both side] a definite emotive cvharge . still tryna work out this foto posting thing but i have sum very exciting fotographic evidence as to the efficiancy of modern brds. they come from a trail of a , well not really a new device more a modification of an existing device, new brd i used in the bay 2 weeks ago. i cud prob. send em thru derek again but id miss the satisfaction of conquering technology and poor derek would be accused of not needing prawns for a while[whats with that]. in regards to wether the fish survives if it is excluded of course they do.....they swim out the openings......exclusion gaurentees survival. anyway soon as i can ill put up these fotos chz.

rando

22-03-2006, 11:33 AM

Hi Waldo
My concern is the " couple of hundred kilo of bycatch", mate you may not think so, but that is a shit load of fish. I have been fishing for more than a decade and dont think I have accounted for a couple of hundred kilos, let alone bycatch.
This is precisely where the problem lays. You blokes accept a couple of hundred kilos a shot as minimal damage. THAT AMOUNT OF DAMAGE HORRIFIES ME.
I think you( commercial operators) need to reassess what your ACTUAL impact is.
Please dont try to justify this, I know the arguments. "Progress being made, Blah blah blah" it is still too much and still an inexcusable waste, sorry if I offend but thats my view.
kind regards
rando

waldo35

22-03-2006, 12:55 PM

mmmmmmm rando u dont mention the huge losses of habitat, decreases in water quality etc all the other major enemies to biodiversity only fishermen...again were an easy target. imagine if we worked 2gether to force a real addressing of these issues say for example every canal developement in the bay 2 b reafforested w/ mangroves [ 1 of my personal favourites] just imagine the huge boost all marine life would recieve from this. im not trying to argue the rights or wrongs merely to provide an alternative to the media hysteria.how many jobs did that coupla hundred kilo of fish and the 6-7 tonnes of seafood provide both directly [boatcrew] and indirectly [transport, chandlery,stores boat slipping,processing,netmaking,engineering etc]. not trying to rationalize ur horror as that is ur business but please remain open minded . thanx for ur opinion

Gazza

22-03-2006, 03:51 PM

coupla hundred kilo of fish and the 6-7 tonnes of seafood

waldo ,you aint claiming a 30:1 ratio are ya??????

i.e. 3% by-catch are ya???

Keep it real ;)

waldo35

22-03-2006, 08:18 PM

nah gazza talking about that specific shot .

dazza

22-03-2006, 09:50 PM

hi waldo,
look forward to the photos
mangroves in the canals, bloody hell, it would block the view >:( >:( >:(
maybe neatly trimmed like a hedge ::) ::) ::)
unfortunatley it will never happen, even though it is a fantastic solution to increase breeding habitat in the estruary.
a bit off topic sorry
always shake my head at the pacific harbour development on bribie, they have essentially completley f#%@ed 2 large mangrove wetlands, but continue to win awards for their "care of the environment" go figure >:( >:(
cheers
dazza

tshort

23-03-2006, 07:05 AM

"blinded by preconcieved ideals or just unwilling to open ur minds to new possibilities " says Waldo.

Waldo, could you send us some photos of an average shot for king prawns so we can compare this fishery against Bananas.
Whiting are another species where you have massive near total clean shots from the shallows without the use of planes or any special technology, although I dont know wether thats still the case.
Were spotter planes introduced into the fishery to make it more efficient ie. target specific / less by-catch or to gain an advantage, are they even still used.
Waldo, youve started a good thread, every-one could learn something here keep it up.

rando

23-03-2006, 11:14 AM

Waldo
Mate yours is an exercise in blame shifting , you are pointing a finger everywhere but at yourself.
At the same time you are trying to convince me that having to accept massive biomass destruction by trawlers is "my business".
In other words I should go and get &^%$*ed because its a problem of perception on my part.
You continually hammer the "look how far we have come" point when you should be hanging your head in shame at the continued level of harm you are causing.
You mention water quality. How much sediment does your net stir up into the water column with every shot and how long does the turbidity so created wash up and down the bay??? multiply by the number of trawlers in the bay & the number of shots per working day and ask the question of yourself . HOW MUCH HARM AM I PREPARED TO DO??
You mention habitat loss how many thousands of kilometres of seabed habitat have you personally destroyed, ask yourself the same question HOW MUCH DESTRUCTION AM I PREPARED TO DO???
You mention habitat restoration, What has the trawl industry EVER done to restore the damage they have caused to marine habitats and what am I doing personally to redress the situation.

You complain of being an easy target!! That is because blind freddy can see how much harm you do. And whats worse is the harm done by years of indescriminate fishing that we can NEVER recover from. And because you claim a greater right of access to the resource by way of your "proprietal access"
The last time I had cause to visit the "Fisheries Act" I seem to remember the act was formulated to bestow EQUAL RIGHT OF ACCESS TO ALL STAKEHOLDERS.

Yes you are making some effort to improve your method of operation( its probably cheaper to operate if you exclude bycatch) but if you were fair dinkum you would'nt be fiddling at the edges and trying to blame everyone else for the problem of falling fish stocks. The problem is largly your doing and that fact is inescapable and it has been created by greedy atrocious behaviour.

I applaude your efforts to improve your operations but find your arguments and blame shifting trite and unsupportable.
Kind Regards
rando

lefty_green

24-03-2006, 08:03 AM

waldo, you're fighting a losing battle with this. You cannot convince ausfish members that what you are doing is sustainable. Even though, in Qld, commercial trawl fishers are required to install turtle excluder devices and bycatch reduction devices. Even though trawling occurs in only about 1% of Qld waters. Even though trawl effort in Qld has dropped consistently over the last 5 years.

You and I both know that those photos are the exception rather than the rule. It would have been better to post a couple from the tiger fishery or the king prawn fishery. These would have been a little more representative, I feel, given that these fisheries have the most effort. The banana prawn fishery in Qld, as you know, has been decimated by the RAP process.

It may be better to cut your losses and run.

Lefty

GBC

24-03-2006, 10:30 AM

Jeez Waldo, you try to assist and look where it gets you. I'll stick my balls on the block next and discuss tigers and kings.
Gulf tigers are trawled out of the same water as the bananas - just at different times so make your own minds up about how more representative tigers are.
Kings have got to be the cleanest type of trawling around - 120fa of water and only two shots a night!!! Where else in the world can yu do that? 3% Bycatch would be on overstatement.
Most trawlers that catch 'habitat' end up as the wrecks us recs fish. Scallops and prawns are mainly caught on sand bottom.
I'm talking about 20m 400 h.p. vessels which make up the majority of the export catch here.
I argue that this type of fishing is sustainable and should continue.
I can't argue about bay/river trawlers as I have no first hand experience with them, however judging by some of the retorts here that doesn't seem to matter.
Blaming pros won't fix the issue here.

Quick second point:
Water quality-
Current water quality models being run by DNRM&W show that "if" best practice methods were undertaken for runoff/sewerage treatment were adopted in the near future (they aren't real flash now), water quality in Moreton bay will stay the same and not improve. Population growth is offsetting these measures. There is a point where these lines of extrapolation converge and and the effects of population growth outstrip the measures being taken to control water quality, and the bay is poisoned.
Pro's and rec's are in the same boat when it comes to living with the above effects. There is a bigger picture than turbidity caused by otter trawl.

tshort

24-03-2006, 12:03 PM

Watch out gulf there will be a lot of trawlers up that way soon as the fisheries to the south have become unsustauinable. What was the % of fishers that put up their hand for the last buy out scheme a year or 2 ago, huge. I know there was a lot of disappointed trawlermen after they got knocked back. Sustainable isnt a word that can be used in an industry where the majority want out.

lefty_green

24-03-2006, 12:53 PM

Kings have got to be the cleanest type of trawling around - 120fa of water and only two shots a night!!! Where else in the world can yu do that? 3% Bycatch would be on overstatement.

Might want to read a few of the posts concerning the bycatch issue up the coast recently. I agree deepwater king prawning is low bycatch. But shallow water (<50fthm) has THE most bycatch of any fishery in QLD.

rando

24-03-2006, 12:57 PM

GBC
Your point about water quality staying the same does more to support my argument #than refute it.
Sewerage outfall is a continuous problem for water quality,( and there is little any of us can do to change that) but runoff require a wet weather event( a bit short on supply over the last few years) and #therefore #has an intermittent effect.
dragging a chain across the seabed not only stirs sediment into the water column but also stirs up and dissolves nutrients that if undisturbed stay in the sediment. This goes on day after day by multiple operators and once this stuff is stirred up it takes a long long time to settle. (Shake a teaspoon of soil in a glass of water and see how long before it is clear). It is of little surprise to me that the huge changes in outfall quality have had little effect on the overall water quality while trawlers plow the paddock all night

You also proudly quote figures 3% bycatch. Thats about 200 kgs of biomass destroyed per week for each boat. I wonder how many tonnes that is across the fleet.You say (quote) "... trawlers that catch habitat end up as wrecks ..."(unquote) are you seriously suggesting that the seabed is not habitat???

Take the blinkers off and recognize that what you do is inherently bad for the environment AND YOU (trawler operators) ARE PERSONALLY #RESPONSABLE . It is not someone else that is creating this #problem , it is YOU.

Having said that , please understand I have nothing against you gentlemen personally, but am passionate about this subject, and cannot understand anyone trying to justify such an inherently bad practice.
Much better to say "We do it for a buck, and #the consequences are of little concern to us". That at least I can believe.
Regards
rando

GARFISH

25-03-2006, 12:37 PM

Reading this and the other posts regarding trawling, I am a rec fisherman who has a father in law who had a trawler (Retired) and many friends that are involved in the commercial side of things from retail to netting to line fishing.

I could go on about the damage that nets are reported to do, but I have been known to throw an anchor and disturb the sediment, Oh and when I throw a bait net I also disturb all the sediment. And my crab pots do to.

Not to mention if I catch a snag, I admit at times I have broken the snag off and have potentially removed some poor fish his habitat.

I can hear you now saying that yes but howm much is that compared to what trawlers do. What would be the ratio of rec anglers to Pros 50 or a 100 to 1 I would guess at minimum maybe up to a 1000.

So as I live in a glass house I will not throw any stones.
It is good to see Waldo trying to discuss these issues which are so important to all of us. Both the commercial and Recreational industry are an important part of not only our economy but are also part of our culture. Not everyone can go throw a net for fresh prawns. My mother who has had a hip and knee replacement in the last 12 months would probably struggle as well has having two vertebra fused. Yet she loves prawns, and I for one would prefer that they were coming from Australia than Vietnam. At least our Australian trawlers are taking steps to improve their efficiency and reduce by catch through TED's and other changes which have come through regulatory changes. Trawlers do not want to catch by-catch as this increases their costs but at the moment they do catch some. Yes some trawling may catch more than others but then some rec fisherman catch a lot too.. I can remember camping as a youngster and seeing people with tomato buckets full of undersized whiting. I know not all of us do or have done this but some have in the past and still do

Again whilst I would love to have the ocean and particularly the rivers all to ourselves realise that is not likely to happen. People will still want to be able to buy fish and prawns.. I have read the posts on here how most people are against the importation of Seafood. Well if we eliminate the commercial sector in Australia there will be no alternative.

Again we all have very vested interest in this. Either through our way of life or through our earning capcity. Again thanks Waldo for continuing to provide the commercial side of things.

Jono_SS

25-03-2006, 01:43 PM

30+knots at the banana banks. now THAT stirs up some sediment!

Gazza

25-03-2006, 04:30 PM

Hi GARFISH , why bring ya mummy into it??? :o :P :D

My mother who has had a hip and knee replacement in the last 12 months would probably struggle as well has having two vertebra fused. Yet she loves prawns, and I for one would prefer that they were coming from Australia than Vietnam
Mate ,nobody expects anybodies mum to wrestle a steer to the ground either ,even kill a chook..... ;) ,if she didn't want to :P

We'd all luv ya to only catch deepwater prawns ,over the imported ones anyday......
Maybe we just can't buy into "unsustainable practice" prawns, where there is a better way ,with Waldo's on-going research.

Waste(by-catch) is waste mate ,on that we all agree... 8-) :-X

essky

25-03-2006, 06:45 PM

Not sure if this could be made economically feasable, but how about an idea from the egg industry where you have free range vs caged hens.

If prawns could be marketed as 'Limited Bycatch', or 'Fish Friendly Prawns', etc, because they are from deep water or use the latest by-catch reduction technology, I would choose them over any other?

troy

hussy

25-03-2006, 08:01 PM

hey waldo long time since i have seen an all prawn shot like that, on the 50 or so days i went out on several trawlers i never saw anything like it,or water like it obviously nowhere near the bycatch scandall areas bob h

hussy

25-03-2006, 08:15 PM

good on you garfish ,sure you wernt a netter in a past life we here from the bribie netters that we need them so the old and frail can get their omega 3 which is essential to them. and how much they contribute to the local economy. makes you wonder if there is a santa as well

rando

28-03-2006, 11:05 AM

There must be a less wasteful way of tapping the resource than dragging a net for miles .
These days with gps etc the prawn industry must have a reasonable idea where to find the prawns.
Perhaps its time to switch methods and develop prawn traps that will meet the commercial demand but not rape the environment
Just trying to think outside the box here. why waste time & money sticking with and trying to improve a fishing practice that is fundamentally flawed.
Lets get back to the drawing board.

What is another method?
How can it be made commercially viable.?
What alternative practices do other cultures use and can these be adapted to our seafood industry needs.
etc etc

szopen

28-03-2006, 01:48 PM

What alternative practices do other cultures use and can these be adapted to our seafood industry needs.
etc etc

Farming them.

bo_sawyer

28-03-2006, 02:23 PM

best prawns ive ever eaten where farmed prawns... bright in colour and nice n salty.... beautiful :P

dinga1

28-03-2006, 03:57 PM

Environment Australia has set a 40% reduction target for bycatch for the east coast trawl fishery. This has been partly met by a reduction in effort of 33% hence you would assume a reduction in bycatch of 33%. This only leaves 7% to go to satisfy one of the federal governments sustainability requirements for the fishery. The effort reduction has been in actual boat nights not latent effort. With observers now coming into force in the fishery data is available to monitor the bycatch levels into the future. With gear technology and research developing, the best teds and brds have been identified for the fishery and their compulsory use has been legislated for. Square mesh codends have the capability of reducing bycatch in the scallop and deepwater ekp by 77% and 34% respectively (mainly due to the target being so much bigger than the bycatch) however the shallow water ekp has not met with as much success across the board however the radial escape sections have been proven to reduce stout whiting bycatch by 65% but this resulted in a loss of prawns (20%) as well so not ideal for the fishermen who run to to tight break even point. Environment Australia are happy to see these results. work will continue to be done on devices and fishing techniques. Effort distribution in the fishery each year is gradually becoming more concentrated in specific areas rather than spread across the fishery areas as many people suggest. this further reduces large scale effects and allows populations outside of trawl grounds to easily compensate for the impacts on their populations within trawl grounds 9if at all these impacts are significant) does anyone have any real knowledge of whether the bycatch populations are impacted by trawling. maybe they are fecund and have short lifecycles traits which ecologists suggests are suitable for disturbed environments and that is why they are bycatch species because they can survive in thes areas.....just something for us all to consider and think a little more thoroughly about rather than viewing bycatch as a doomed resource. it probably isnt an ideal situation but possibly it is not the doomsday forecast most here are predicting. fishermen would love nothing more to pull nets up full of only prawn their costs would diminish significantly and the profits would skyrocket, they dont go out of their way to catch bycatch and most do their very best to avoid it

rando

29-03-2006, 11:51 AM

Dinga1
In a previous post Gazza said "waste is waste", you can't put a "spin " on it and expect others to accept it. You are still substantially interfereing with the food chain, you are continually destroying either juveniles of desired catch species or the food they rely on to support their populations.
You dont seem to grasp the fact that the larger population of people, not just rec fishers strenuosly object to the practice.

Your efforts to reduce bycatch are to be commended. That is not to say that "a few hundred kilos" per shot of bycatch is acceptable and that you are all good blokes for only destroying "some" of our "remnant" populations of fish.

Would you expect us to accept Saddam Hussien's actions were OK because they were not as extreme as Adolf Hitlers ( extreme example I know but illustrates my point).

Yes we all want prawns but NOT at the current cost to the environment

rando

GBC

29-03-2006, 12:32 PM

Rando,

I think you're taking inshore trawling, which is not exactly representative of the industry catch wise. Juvenile and most "target" species known to rec fishers are generally not caught in great numbers. Having said that the whole whiting debarcle isn't really going to help me here. It would be more common to catch goat fish etc, which aren't targetted by anyone but the viets....
I'll try to dig up some data from - about 1990? CSIRO shut Princess Charlotte Bay for a year, and their research vessel was the only one allowed to work the area. Basically prawn numbers didn't change very much, catfish and goatfish numbers increased and not a lot else changed apart from the ring netters having a bumper year because the mackeral decided to stay rather than migrate(just kidding).
The prawns breed elsewhere and have bigger issues such as rainfall/intertidal seagrass beds etc determining stock levels.

rando

29-03-2006, 02:31 PM

GBC
Most definately talking Inshore, and I think most people accept that deep water trawl is "cleaner"( even offshore I cant condone the overall level of damage) But trawling in bays and rivers is just crazy.
I think of all that wasted fish,each shot, then when I get a day to myself to wet a line, guess what??, no fish!!!
Now Im the first to admit I am a crap fisherman.
But I use the best gear I can afford, and employ the best techniques (mostly learned here on this site) that I know, and the freshest bait I can get.
It frustrates me that while I cant even get a couple of fresh fish to feed my family,commercial operators are killing it BY THE TON!!!
Rando

dinga1

29-03-2006, 05:04 PM

Rando,
are you of the opinion pepole object to the catch rates of bycatch or its fate once caught. would people prefer to see bycatch utilised or not taken at all.

The catch of recreationally important species in the bycatch are quite low. It is when trawlers get off normal trawl tracks(on the edge of reefs) that they start catching juvenile reef species, this is associated with the habitat types that do not permit trawling. sand/soft bottoms are the favoured habitat for prawns.

if the populations of bycatch species are demonstrated as being sustainable does this change your opinion?? remember that populations outside of the small trawled area may easily support the population overall and be able to compensate the loss of individuals from trawl grounds.

the loss of biodiversity that is perceived from trawling is just as evident on farmlands and areas developed for cattle feedlots, other primary producers that we enjoy the fruits of. remember that crusteceans and other hard bodied taxa survive this process quite well given the shallow sites they are fishing

nulla

30-03-2006, 12:48 PM

Dinga1

Please don't compare trawl fishing to land based primary production on either leasehold or freehold land.

Farmers have paid for exclusive use of the resource and manage it to be sustainable as it is the only resource they have.

Trawling is really using a public resource, even though you may pay a licence to do so. It is really up to the public to decide what is the best use of that public resource. While the trawl industry (at least some within the industry) is commended for realising there is a problem with bycatch, and having made ground I think all agree there is still much to be done.

Should bycatch be retained or returned to the sea? I am open to suggestions, but doubt that the economic return from bycatch makes it worthwhile and prevention of bycatch is probably the best way to go. I welcom you thoughts on this

propeller_girl

30-03-2006, 05:18 PM

i think it is time we accept that our comercial fisheries in queensland are managed and if things need to change they will. good on the fisherman for having a go at reducing their bycatch, and they are still working on it. i cant wait to tuck in to my next lot of queensland prawns, not the imported stuff in super markets.

rando

30-03-2006, 11:26 PM

Dinga1
I cant answer your question as I have not got enough information on bycatch make-up to answer meaningfully.
In an Ideal world I would say not taken at all, but I am not so one eyed as to suggest this is achievable .
you say,(" the loss of biodiversity percieved by trawling") Do YOU really think that it is a question of perception and not actually happening???.
Given the level of denial the commercial sector displays on the level of harm their activities actually do , forgive me if I reserve my judgement .

Logic will tell you that you cannot continue to take tens of thousands of tonnes of product out of an ecosystem and at the same time physically alter that same ecosystem without doing harm.

Thats what trawling has been doing for decades.
Too late even #the trawlermen have realised " Hey there seems to be a lot less fish to catch "
It seems that you blokes are the only ones who can't see what happened to them. # You suggest any other cause #except your own activity.

You can point to all the improvements you like, unfortuately, #it is TOO LITTLE #& TOO LATE.
The big populations of fish have already been caught and dumped over the side,, BYCATCH >:(.
"Plenty more where that came from" ;)
"We only trawl a little bit of ocean." ;)

But thats OK, You blokes are doing #a good job.

Ill go fishing again next chance I get....I wonder If Ill actually catch a fish!!!!!

rando

Lobster48

02-04-2006, 01:07 PM

I think you all have very valid points.

One thing not talked about from what I can see is the value of Aquaculture. On one hand we have a need for the product nad a group who are willing, within the laws of the country, to provide it. On the other we have the consumer whi is generally disgusted about how the product is caught and the damage it does...bit is still willing to throw Kilos of the stuff down their mouth and get it for the lowest possible price.

There is a major problem wild stocks and we must ack soon to fix the problem. The only real answer is to ocnduct a drawn out, controled by back of pro-licenses, place more money into viable aquaculture production, increae tariffs and controls of cheap imported seafood, and increase surveillance of our territorial seas against poachers. If we do not do this we will continue our downward spiral.

I think it is lame to fight between the commercial and the recreational fisherman...it just does not make sense. Working together to acheive the goal is much more appropriate.

Whilst we can minimise bycatch with net sizes etc, the only true way the alleviate bycatch is the grow the stuff outselves. We have the technology and tghe resources, all we need is the will to do it on a grand scale.

Something to think about perhaps!

Lobster 8-)

Lobster48

02-04-2006, 01:14 PM

By the way Waldo,

I reckon your right...the amount of damage caused by our insatiable desire to live on / near the coast is one of the greatest factors effecting the marine environment.

It is a lot easier to blame you guys though because we can see what you pull out of the water as opposed to putting our finger on the true costs of the increased marine developments, new suburbs along the coastal fringe, increased traffic (including watercraft), use of fertilisers and poisons on agricultural lands adjacent to the reef.

It is the fight between progress and environment. The more we progress the more we effect the environment.

Living in Darwin I am constantly amazed when I head south at the constant expansion of cities and the number of boats on the water, cars on the streets, people in the shops.

I think I will stay here and listen to all of the gripes from a distance and hope like hell you all sort it out before it truely affects my little piece of paradise.

Good luck to you al and please hurry...it won't be long now.

Lobster

White_Steenbras

06-04-2006, 10:56 PM

Looks like a tasty feed.

spuderico

06-04-2006, 11:23 PM

Went fishing just at the mouth of the river and thought I might wet a line where the Pelicans were fishing! I was right at the mouth of a dirty big plumbing pipe.. Ummm what delicacies would have been offered for those poor creatures?? Im glad to say that I left empty handed!

dinga1

07-04-2006, 04:00 PM

could an increase in bycatch indicate the the communities in these areas are actually flourishing???

if you catch more fish doesnt that mean more are there to be caught???

dinga1

07-04-2006, 04:04 PM

something for us to think about

roz

08-04-2006, 11:37 PM

A few years ago I was able to get out on trawler belonging to a friend of the family.

This trawler worked out of Southport. I went out maybe a dozen times over a few months.

I am sorry now I didn't have the sense to take along a camera. The amount of by-catch was appalling.

This was just one boat of dozens working out of Southport.

At that time of year they were probably doing 3-4 shots a night, which could go up to 5, I think it depended on how close in they worked.

I would'nt be able to give an accurate ratio of prawns to by-catch, but I would have to say it was well into double figures, and not much survives the cod end of those nets.

I've rarely bought prawns since then, I also find the use of the word 'harvesting' odd, when it's used in the same sentence with trawlers.

Harvesting suggests to me, something was cultivated to begin with.

Not so in the case of trawlers.

waldo35

09-04-2006, 10:57 AM

tanx to al the open minded folks that are able to see past the recco/green hype. yes we all want a slice of the same resource pie. profishers are working on our sustainability issues [ did u know that teds turtle excluder devices have been used since the the early 90s in the bay prob not] what i hear a lot of on these web sites is trawlers are killing the fishstocks. seems strange coming from an industry that cannot define its actual effort at all. when u guys can thru log books and licensing tell us exactly what ur effect on fish stocks is when u guys can account for the increase in the recreational industrys effort thru 50 thou people per year moving to se qld to enjoy seachange thru the increasingly affordability of gps plotters sounders and all other 'professional gear' thru web sites and mobile fones directing effort then maybe ill listen . were working on our issues wot r u gus doing ..... noithing that i can see other than playing the blame the pros game. ive had plenty of folk thro the 60 fishers on a wharf ask how many caught a fish .........yeah well 60 hooks day in day out in a relatively closed ecosystem ..........who killed the fish there...........i didnt trawl there.

rando

09-04-2006, 09:17 PM

Waldo
1.Rec fishing is not an industry, its an activity pursued by individuals

2. Rec fishing activity has negligable bycatch by comparison to commercial operations

3. Just because there are 60 fishers at a location does not mean that even one fish was caught.In fact in heavily fished locations its harder to catch the fish as they become educated.

4. Is it your belief that only pro fishers should have access to electronics aids.

5. 50 thousand people a week may move here, how many have boats??? when i was in the advertising industry 5 years ago , targeting boaties was a waste of time, as the percentage of the general population was too low.

6 Once again you are trying to turn the spotlight elsewhere than what commercial fishers have done, and are still doing to the environment.
Time to take a long hard look at your self personally and say yes/no I am personally prepared to damage the environment for profit. Because that is the question this debate hinges on.
By the way I am not a greeny or politically aligned in any way I just have strong personal views on this matter.

Last week on Sunday evening at about 8.00pm I crossed from Mud Island to the river mouth and had to avoid 3 trawlers in that short distace and could see another 3 in the same vicinity all trawling. Some friends counted 11 trawlers anchored at Mud during last week

In the five hrs we fished we accounted for 10 fish, 0 juveniles were killed nor were any non target species destroyed. I wonder how many one of those trawlers killed.

waldo35

10-04-2006, 10:53 AM

mate if the recco industry was not so how do u account for the bfc phenomenom [ the bunnings of the fishing tackle world].
recco fishing accounts for 3/4s of the bream harvest in qld and 2/3 of the whiting harvest mmmmmmm wot no effect.
60 hooks educating fish.....mate come on.
it is not my belief that only pros shud have access to electronics but the profishing sector has accounted for the subsequent increase in effort from the use of such devices. ur industry cannot even empirically account for ur tru effort let alone effort creep.
wmb oceanics surveys of where trawlers work in the bay cites minimal effect on the environement....
to claim that the recreational industry has no effect on the enviroment is ludicris. profishers are always refered to within the frame work of not actual effort but maximum allowable effort.
apply this principal to the recco industry and see where the numbers end up......880,000 fishers multiplied by any bag limit multiplied by average weight of fish.........go on work it out.......i dare u.
and finally i work for an honest living providing equitable access to the entire community to the health giving benefits of seafood. yes i expect to make a profit but i also strive continously to minimize my impacts on the enviroment, which is reflected in the 2004 fisheries discussion paper which states ' that whilst primarily driven by such abiotic factors as rainfall ' that moreton bay is primarily a sustainable resource.
mate try opening both eyes.

GBC

10-04-2006, 10:53 AM

Rando,

What Waldo and others do is LEGAL, and is deemed to be so by the government.
It is also managed by the government.
Perhaps your comments would be better directed toward lobby groups and the political arena?
You seem to exonerate yourself and rec fishers from having any effect at all? A magnificent effort in the absence of fact.
However what's being served up here wouldn't carry too much weight with the abovementioned groups.

"Time to take a long hard look at your self personally and say yes/no I am personally prepared to damage the environment for profit. Because that is the question this debate hinges on."

Do you live in a house, in a city, drive a car, participate in the same consumerist society as the rest of us? And then wish to fish the 'pristine' waters of Mud island on a saturday with everybody else?

I reckon you live in the same glass house as the rest of us, and trying to blame an affiliated part of the same small picture - no matter what your personal views - is a retrograde move and can only harm what others work so hard to achieve.

Bay water quality issues will, in a couple of years be of much more concern than pro fishing ever was. Then - maybe you'll look to the same guys you're blaming to supply data to substantiate that the bay is dying from something much more sinister than over fishing.......

C.J.

waldo35

10-04-2006, 12:56 PM

thanx gbc well said

rando

10-04-2006, 02:15 PM

GBC/Waldo.
Ill try again.
There is NO recreational fishing industry.
There are retail industries that sell fishing products such as rods and reels. There are manufacturing industries that make rods and reels etc etc But there is no such thing as a recreational fishing industry.

Qouting the figures you use with regard to bag limit X by the number of rec fishers is pure bullshit and I suspect you know it.
I have NEVER reached a bag limit on ANY species.
In fact most times I go fishing I return with "0 " fish #multiply that by 880000, I
DARE YOU!!!!.
You Live in a city , in a house ,drive a car the same as me and therefore have the same day to day impact as I do.
The difference lies in your fishing activity.
What you do to the environment in your fishing day has a thousand times more effect than what I do when I fish.
And while the impact i have on your activity is so small that it barely rates consideration, the impact you have on my fishing is huge and is the major contributing factor to the outcome.
I think it is YOU that has a problem with vision

And forgive me if Im cynical about your #stated desire to provide for the masses.

Most people work because they have to have an income.

Dont ask me to believe that you are driven by altruism, if it were so, you could not reconcile your #trawling's #effect #on the environment, with the communities greater good.

In answer to your comments #about my personal effect on the environment I stand by them. The only times I get to fish anywhere other than land based is the occasional invite onto someone elses boat.
I gather my own bait.
I never leave litter and usually pick up any rubbish in the areas I fish.
If I am cast netting I wash down any jetty or pontoon before leaving.
I #observe all bag and size limits and in fact wont take legal bream as they are way too small to kill.
More than 90 % of my fishing excursions end with not one fish being taken and zero bycatch . Can you say the same!!!???
rando

GBC

10-04-2006, 03:03 PM

I stated on a previous thread that amateurs had a larger impact on barra stocks in the N.T. than pros - it ruffled some feathers but I backed it up with facts......not by swearing and then believing my own crap. It ain't bullshit and I suspect if I sent you the links you may be able to do the maths.

Again you are trying to say that 'blokes going fishing is not an industry' - agreed. What they are called is not what I'm concerned about. It is however a given that amateurs (me included and by the way I generally catch fish if not bag out #;D ;D) HAVE AN IMPACT and to say we don't is stem stretching. Call it what you like.

By your own ratio - your front garden is O.K., but cotton farming should stop? By the way I'm not a huge fan of cotton farming methods. However because I am a gardener who has much less impact than a farmer does that then somehow make me more riteous?
Take a look around your suburb and check out the gardening going on and it will add up to a lot of phosphates entering the storm water system. Each joe average only buys a kilo a year - but the cumulative effect is not dissimilar to a farm runoff.

I would apply a similar yardstick to me-you and all the other amateurs out there - together we have an impact.
I have also stated in the past that I believe that this impact is sustainable.

This assumes however that existing parameters don't change and that the bay isn't poisoned by 2 million 'I didn't do it' joe average gardeners.

rando

10-04-2006, 08:54 PM

I am not trying to be more righteous , but pro fishers cannot justify the damage they do by saying that others also do damage. When you have got the environmental problems your activity creates minimized so as to have little or no affect on others then you can start calling out for others to change.

The simple truth is if tomorrow all trawling stopped in Moreton bay and its estuaries the bay would recover far more ( and more quickly) than if all rec fishing stopped because the cumulative negative effects of all trawling is greater than the cumulative negative effect of all rec fishing.

You demand quantification(an impossable task) that what rec fishers say is supportable.
Well for years we said the professionals were damaging mackeral stocks, and surprise surprise when the pros stopped netting the mackeral made a magnificent comeback.
Most people I speak to now believe that the major problem the bay faces is too much trawling.I believe that the "COMMON sence " of this will be bourne- out, just as it was for the mackeral.
Dont worry too much about the phosphates mate,
worry about all the seagrass that has been destroyed( it would have soaked up phosphates/nitrates)
and turbidity created by dragging the bottom night after night that also damages seagrass regrowth.
rando

waldo35

10-04-2006, 09:20 PM

rando u hate trawler w/ a passion as is ur wont. but please dont try and tell me that the recco sector is not an industry.....god look at all the sponship on this website for gods sake.
and mate if u cant catch a fish cos ur a poor fisherman well thats not my fault.
wmb oceanics surveys states that most trawling occurs on mud/silt bottoms and that our impacts are minimal as this mud and silt is laid dow year after year by the natural effect of rivers.
try opening ur eyes dude cos they seem wide shut to me

rando

10-04-2006, 10:02 PM

If rec fishing is an industry who gets the profit?
Thats what an industry is old chum enterprise for profit .

Mate if you put me beside a gunfisherman where there are fish to catch I hold my own .
Its pretty hard to catch fish shore based when blokes like you kill a couple of hundred kilos of fish per shot and call it bycatch.

My eyes are wide open pal and no amount of "spin" from you will change what I can see.
I spent 10 years in one of australias biggest advertising organisations and I can spot 'spin' at a glance,not one of your arguments holds water, and you refuse to acknowledge that your activity does damage and affects other peoples life styles.
Ive said all I want to say on this matter.

You no doubt will continue what you do and Im sure tomorrow and every day another couple of hundred kilos of fish kill will get chucked off YOUR boat.
another few tons of sediment will be stirred up into the water column by YOUR net .
but somehow the life and environment of the bay will be affected by someone else, not you, it couldnt be you,
rando
rando

Derek_Bullock

10-04-2006, 10:10 PM

Gentlemen

This is getting to personal. Debate the facts but please stop trading personal insults.

Regards

Derek

nonibbles

10-04-2006, 11:37 PM

I thought I was on that (favoured transvestite panty hose) forum for a while until Derek's post reminded me of where I was/am. :-X

waldo35

11-04-2006, 08:08 AM

mmmmmmm not sure if i was trading personal insults and if ive been percieved to be doing so i apologise.
as to coupla hundred kilo of bycatcth per shot ur estimates are way of i wouldnt have a hundred kilo of bycatch for a nites work let alone per shot. further more i havent fished for the last 3 weeks due to illness and the simple fact that my season is main over for this year.
rando maybe u confuse me calling the recco sector an industry with me accusing u personally of sumhow profiting from it..... if thats the perception ive given im sorry.....the supply chain to the recco sector is the industry not u fishers.
as to wether or not i admit to impacts from my industry u might wanna back read sum of my posts w/ regard to what profishers do to address these impacts, check out dinga posts.
im not trying to blame the recco sector for anything i support ur rights to wet a line .
thanx derek for the timely reminder.
and nonibbles all i gotta say is wot????????????? :-/ :-/

GBC

11-04-2006, 10:44 AM

Agreed Derek,

1. If anyone took my comments as a personal assault, I would like to apologise. In the glorious absence of requiring proof, anything can be written on the spur of the moment. If I retorted my colleague's last two offerings I agree that a mudslinging contest would be inevitable.

2. Transvestite pantyhose forums and fishing? Man you got some wicked pastimes.... :o

Regards,

C.J.

finding_time

11-04-2006, 11:52 AM

Rando

I think you are having a go at the wrong group ( profishers) what they are doing is legal and they pay the government for the right to earn there income! As long as the profishers abide by the regulations they have been set it is not there problem.

The persons you should be venting your splean at is the regulators as they can regulate what ever they like ,so if you and a group of like minded individuals put together a arguement for change and the regulators except that , then your problem with the profishers ceases.

I think it is a bit rich to blame a group of people that are acting lawfully when they pay for the right to do this activity. I can see you are this passionate about the subject how about sending the message to the people that matter and are both the cause and the solution to the problem.

Ian

Ps.i dont like trawling but i'm not blaming trawler operators for the results they are doing what is allowed. ;)

Derek_Bullock

11-04-2006, 08:03 PM

Maybe the connection with transvestites and fishing are "fishnet stockings" #;D ;D ;D ;D

nonibbles

11-04-2006, 09:34 PM

clever bloke that Derek! ;)

rando

12-04-2006, 11:30 AM

[quote author=waldo35 link=1142788387/0#8 date=1142907286] # i have heaps of similar shots and not just banana fishing. no serene lady nothings been sorted at all. my estimates of bycatch to prawn ratio shown in those paricular shots wud be maybe a coupla hundred kilo of fish to 3-4 tonne of prawn. #

(Waldo wrote)
as to coupla hundred kilo of bycatcth per shot ur estimates are way of i wouldnt have a hundred kilo of bycatch for a nites work let alone per shot.

suddenly the story has changed.
rando

waldo35

12-04-2006, 04:09 PM

rando ur a persistant bugger arent u. the shot ur talking about is from the npf banana fishery. when i talk about my boat it is a 40 footer working in the bay.... no change of story at all. mate u need to mellow a little and stop looking for hidden meanings and the spin uve mentioned. no spin just trying to present a different point of view....if it doesnt agree w/ ur world view cest le vie.

rando

12-04-2006, 05:32 PM

I am not looking for hidden meanings, just pointing out a contradictory statement (made by you and supported by you in a subsequent post I might add).
Dont expect me to accept your view because i do not & will not.
Dont ask me to chill either what happens on your boat makes me angry and it affects my lifestyle whether you are prepared to admit it or not.

My view is that ,you,the trawlerman are #personally responsable for the environmental damage your activity causes and the best way to change the damage is to make you personally accountable.

Thats why I ask the question.

How much damage are you personally prepared to do???

If that doesnt fit your view, cest la vie.

But dont try and tell me "hey its OK, its only a little bit of bycatch, its only a little bit of silt, its only a little bit of seagrass, because everyone here knows that is 'spin' "

PS yes I am a persistant bugger and wouldnt you love to have me in your team

waldo35

12-04-2006, 09:17 PM

no contradiction dude i drove the boat in the photo and i own the boat i talked about in the bay. i have been working on tutle excluders and bycatch reduction devices for over a decade now. fisheries have a clear mandate to reduce bycatch and if ud read dingas posts with an open mind ud realise that weve gone a long way to fulfilling the requirements.
how much damage are u willing to accept from developement,sewerage ehabitat destruction i dont see u railing against these major causes of impacts on ur lifestyle.........and my legislative right to harvest seafood as well i might add.
again dude dont blame me if u cant catch a fish. ur in a team all of ur own but hey thanx for the dialouge

rando

13-04-2006, 11:06 AM

And there it is again folks,

" dont blame me if there are no fish to catch" its not MY fault

these blokes dont believe for one minute that there is anything wrong with what they do and they believe they have every right to laugh in the face of concerned people who believe otherwise.

I believe we now see the true position.

waldo35

13-04-2006, 12:17 PM

misquoted again rando i said dont blame me if u [personally]cant catch a fish. and talk about spin whilst im sayinf im workinf to minimize my impacts u misquote me and accuse me of laughing in peoples faces .....dude get a grip.....u oughta read the post a little more carefully b4 u spin off tangentally to ur own planet.

dinga1

13-04-2006, 03:27 PM

http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/extra/pdf/fishweb/eastcoasttrawl05.pdf

2004 trawl fishery status report if anyone is interested 2005 not done yet

rando

13-04-2006, 03:49 PM

And why is it ,do you think I, and many like me cant catch a fish, when as stated previously we use the right, gear, bait, locations, tides, barometer readings,techniques, time of year,target species etc.
could it be NO FISH?????
10 years working on bycatch reduction eh. Pretty bloody poor result.!!!

And yes, your previous post says the fault is mine. Talk about making a leap in the dark, you know nothing about me or how, where, when, I fish.
and yet again try to point the finger elsewhere. NOT MY FAULT is your mantra.

And be assured I am not on my own, many people feel as I do.
As for being off the planet.It doesnt rate a response
Lets just stick to debating trawlings impact shall we and not try to divert attention elsewhere.

waldo35

13-04-2006, 10:21 PM

thank u dinga for ur informative post..... a 43% reduction in bycatch since the implementation of the east coast trawl plan..... id hardly call that a 'bloody poor result' as this more than fulfills the gov. requirements for a 40 reduction to address sustainability issues in the trawl sector.
thanks again dinga for empirical data as opposed to hysterical emotive arguments based on nothing more than a personal opinion.
we are adressing our sustainability issues, we are working to minimize our impacts to suggest otherwise is .....welll simply untrue.

jake_snapper_king

17-04-2006, 08:58 AM

i now see wat u mean about as many fish as prawns this is bad

is this justa one of or wat >? this should be happen alover aus

finding_time

17-04-2006, 05:27 PM

My view is that ,you,the trawlerman are #personally responsable for the environmental damage your activity causes and the best way to change the damage is to make you personally accountable.

Thats why I ask the question.

How much damage are you personally prepared to do???

Rando

Before i say this i again state that i'm not all that keen on trawling as an occupation and have problems with the damage they cause.

But what do you expect them to do they probably have families to support ,loans to repay should they just give up there vocation and default on there loans and go bankrupt?? What they do is work very hard to make a living and as long as they abide by the set regulations they are not to blame!

Your issue is with the government if they want to save the seagrass beds let them buy out the licences of these fishermen and compensate them for there loss then your problem would be solved .

As long as the government profits from the fishermen by way of taxes , licence fees and levies they are the ones to blame. ;)

rando

17-04-2006, 07:31 PM

Hi finding time.
I disagree. No one made these blokes enter the profession, they made a decision and they are accountable for the consequences of their decisions. It is they the trawlermen you should apply pressure to because that is where the most change can be affected, and yes, they are to blame , they are fully aware of what they do.

The legality of the enterprise is not the issue. I am simply concerned with cause and effect.
Yes they have families and mortgages, everyone does, at some time in their lives, again a seperate issue.
If you want to see a change demand that the individuals causing the damage are accountable. AND demand they change the way they do things.

waldo35

17-04-2006, 08:17 PM

i wonder sometimes how u come to the conclusions u arrive at rando. noone forced trawlermen to become so..... what about people who come from fishing families.....and again u blame us for ur inability to catch a fish and yet others of ur persausion talk of netters unloading heaps of fish make ur mind up theres either fish or not.
and yet again we get down to slagging of fishermen presented as sum form of arguemnt against pro fishing.... ive gone into wot i do to minimize our impacts.....if u cant present any factual evidence please try and limit ur slandering of hard working honest australians.
but hey thanks for ur imput as misguided and misinformed as it may be.

rando

18-04-2006, 10:44 AM

Did someone hold a gun #to your head Waldo & tell you to be a trawlerman.????

As to your claim of there being an inconsistancy in argument about availability of fish. I think that is not so.
There are a finite number of fish available at any location. If a netter takes a heap of fish it stands to reason the are fewer/none #to be taken by other means. I dont think even you could argue against a net being a more efficient tool for removing fish than a line!.That ,I think is what the other chap was alluding to.

As to me slagging off anyone. Also not true . I have stated that activities of trawlermen ,makes me angry and upset and why that is. Further i have called for them to be personally responsable for thier activity and decisions .
If you are experiencing discomfort because of this perhaps you should examine why you feel like that rather than attempt to discredit my rationality.

Let me assure you I am completely rational. #

I believe I have presented a sound debate, and reiterate, your attempts to paint the progress made in bycatch reduction as a magnificent achievement are underwhelming. TOO LITTLE TOO LATE

The 43% reduction in bycatch claimed by you is only significant if you disassociate it from the starting point, which was wholesale slaughter. Further it was largely achieved by a reduction in effort and a resultant reduction in swept area, a product of the RAP process

The report Dinga tabled as a supporting document is scant on information about the effects on the ecosystem of current bycatch disciplines and the authors will not know till 2007 if the current levels are sustainable.

In other words it is a guess. and therefore the 40% reduction target is also a guess. An arbitary figure set by a government department . In fact the report calls them "precautionary management measures"

Your statement that I am misguided and misinformed is another attempt at shifting the focus of the argument and is unsupported.

rando

waldo35

18-04-2006, 12:23 PM

we get back to the basic selfishness behind all ur arguments rando. nwhilst a profishers harvests to provide access to the whole community u wish that this access is limited to recco fishers only....75 % of people surveyed bt chris web staed fishing only once per year......where does their seafood come from for the rest of the year???
give it up rando ur personal attacks on me are becoming tiring and boring and ur argument present only anecdotal and emotive evidence.

rando

18-04-2006, 04:00 PM

Waldo
Your argument is going around in circles,We have already discussed altruism and your motivation. And noboby I know believes profishers are acting on behalf of the community. It is a contradiction in terms to suggest so.

I have not attacked you personally in any way, merely refuted the arguments you have put forward.

The evidence I have used in my posts is directly from the report Dinga posted.
do you want me to quote the relevant pages and paragraphs??

rando

waldo35

18-04-2006, 08:44 PM

i dunno rando asking me if sum1 put a gun to my head to force me to be a fisherman.... i take that as a personal attack. and the same info that u r quoting to back ur argument is the same info i use to back mine .....seems to be a matter of interpretation but hey thanx again for ur discourse.

Derek_Bullock

18-04-2006, 08:53 PM

Rando and Waldo35 are both warned about making the debate personal. #Debate the issue by all means but stop the attacks on each other.

There will be no further warning to either of you.

rando

19-04-2006, 06:13 PM

roz

19-04-2006, 10:46 PM

You dont need to be an academic or do a formal study to know that taking prawns ,and bycatch( lower order taxa) from the foodchain in large amounts over a long period will cause a decline in fishstocks, thats their food, take it away and feed it to the sharks birds and dolphins and you will have fewer fish. end of story.
You can argue other causes till you are blue in the face but the bottom line is, too much product is coming out of the food chain
The prawn fishery could very well be sustainable but at what cost to the rest of the bays inhabitants

I am going to have to agree with rando here, sorry Waldo but it is the bottom line.

As I posted earlier....I've seen huge amounts of by-catch first hand, one thing I didn't mention was the skippers comment that "it was once the other way around"..... almost all prawns.

You have pointed out many other factors contributing to the decline in fish/prawn stocks, and you are absolutely right Waldo, but I think you are in denial regarding the bleeding obvious.

BTW I am enjoying this debate very much.

Cheers Roz.

bidkev

20-04-2006, 09:17 AM

[quote author=rando link=1142788387/75#83 date=1145434401]<snip>

BTW I am enjoying this debate very much.

Cheers Roz.

That's 'cause you like a bit of aggro! ;) ;D

I'm staying out of it........I've got enough on my plate atm..............pity it's all mullet ;D

kev

It is far better to be alone, than to wish you were.

bidkev

20-04-2006, 09:24 AM

could an increase in bycatch indicate the the communities in these areas are actually flourishing???

if you catch more fish doesnt that mean more are there to be caught???

Not neccessarily. Increased effort and changes of venue can produce that result. Also, the type of by-catch isn't recorded......it could consist in the main of only one species which would indicate an increase in that species at the cost to other species. It is documented that in the inshore fishery there is likely to be an increase of predators such as catfish, (at the expense of other species) due to the easy pickings of not only escapees from the net, but also discards (unwanted by-catch)

kev

It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.

waldo35

20-04-2006, 09:31 AM

Although many fish captured by anglers are released (approaching 100 percent for some species), there can be substantial postrelease mortality (Muoneke and Childress 1994, Cooke and Suski forthcoming) as well as more subtle sublethal effects on growth and fitness (Cooke et al. 2002). Release mortality in recreational fisheries is analogous to bycatch discards in commercial fisheries, an internationally recognized conservation problem (Alverson et al. 1994).

In addition to contributing directly to global fishery declines through harvest or mortality, recreational fisheries can contribute to alterations in system function and quality. Harvest or postrelease mortality can act as a selective force in recreational fisheries (Policansky 1993), as it has been observed to do in commercial fisheries (Heino and Godo 2003). Although fewer examples exist in recreational fisheries, trophic or ecosystem-level effects can also be observed (McPhee et al. 2002). Environmental degradation from fishing was once attributed primarily to commercial activities (Dayton et al. 1995), but the recreational sector is now understood to have its fair share of responsibility (Cryer et al. 1987). Discarded fishing line and hooks can foul birds, marine mammals, corals, and other marine life, resulting in substantial injury and mortality (Cowx 2002, McPhee et al. 2002 ). Also, the accumulation of lead sinkers can result in mortality of waterbirds and have effects at higher trophic levels (Cowx 2002). Anglers may disturb wildlife, trample riparian vegetation to gain access to the water, and increase nutrient loading through ground baiting (distribution of organic bait to attract fish). Recreational boat traffic and the associated noise pollution, waves, erosion, and scarring also contribute to environmental degradation (Cowx 2002, McPhee et al. 2002).

Recreational fisheries are also responsible for an as yet undetermined degree of degradation offish stocks through fishery enhancement practices (Cowx 1998) or introductions (Cambray 2003). Notwithstanding these issues, the position of recreational fisheries must be balanced against the huge value (billions of dollars) of the sector to regional and local economies (Cowx 2002).

Recreational fishing and global fish crises

Several factors may explain the lack of attention to recreational fisheries in the consideration of global fishery crises. Collapses induced by recreational fishing may be difficult to detect (Post et al. 2002). Few long-term monitoring programs exist that could be used to detect declines in a global context. Furthermore, anglers exhibit complex behavior, and fisheries respond dynamically to exploitation (Post et al. 2002). Also, because recreational anglers represent a vocal and effective constituent group, the standard response to perceived or actual decline or alteration in population structure is supplementation (Cowx 1998). Hence, the impact of recreational fishing is typically addressed by curing symptoms rather than by addressing underlying causes.

like to hightlight the sector that says
release mortality in recco fisheries analogous to bycatch discards is commercial fisheries.
had to look up analogous;similar,paralell [oxford concise]
mmmmmmmm
sumthing about clean fingers and pointing......

dinga1

20-04-2006, 09:53 AM

But if those fish you are taking out have the opportunity to spawn once or probably several times then isnt what gets taken out being replaced at a rate higher than the rate of removal (assuming standard natural mortality and limited effects of trawling given that juvenile bycatch species may not occur on trawl grounds). In theory a historical increase in bycatch catch rates (accounting for effort)could potentially mean that bycatch species are increasing in abundance??? Would this in turn mean they are threatened?? The species that are threatened could be the rarer ones located only on trawl grounds, how many of these there are who knows??

prawns are highly fecund and their biology means that they are not very susceptible to trawling eg burying (from a population perspective) ekp catches have been stable over a number of years but it is believed they are harvested at their maximun sustainable yield. this is based on stock assessment using catch rates from commercial data and sizes of prawns caught. i dont know enough about this process yet to comment any further

i am not convinced the "fishstocks" feed heavily on bycatch species(river fisheries may be different), sure some may be prime food items but on the whole the majority of bycatch species are spiny, leathery and generally dont look like good bait! They are returned to the water anyway so the fish stocks can still eat them potentially. dolphins only eat certain species in the bycatch and the sharks often ignore evrything you throw to them, as for birds i would think in offshore areas at night their impact would be minimal.

As for dettermining a baseline for comparison of bycatch reduvtions to then this is impossible as no historical data exists on bycatch quantities or composition. All that can be done is to compare from now(or from whenever bycatch was quantified for a fishery). There may be anecdotal evidence to suggest that current levels are in excess of years gone by but no government is going to base management changes on this i wouldnt think.

cheers

GBC

20-04-2006, 10:06 AM

Damm I'm back again....

Just on the license buyback issue -

I have it on good authority that the EPA had a budget of $A9.5 million to buyback licenses in sandy straights as part of the recently launched policy in that area. Premier's knocked it on the head, and pros still now have full access to this area including netting creek mouths. This is the sort of damage in areas that breed juvenile fish that affects more rec fishers than any other type of fishing.
The govt is also looking at large scale fish farming off the Bargara/mon repos area. During harvesting even pros will be shut out of massive tracts of water for up to 3 months so be warned.

Gazza

20-04-2006, 10:07 AM

assuming standard natural mortality and limited effects of trawling given that juvenile bycatch species may not occur on trawl grounds). In theory a historical increase in bycatch catch rates (accounting for effort)could potentially mean that bycatch species are increasing in abundance???

could potentially mean......less prawns per kilo of "discard" :-?

juvenile bycatch = prawnsize :o

dinga1

20-04-2006, 10:19 AM

dinga1

20-04-2006, 10:23 AM

Gazza,

not the ratio increase but an increase in bycatch kg per ha trawled. if you catch more bycatch for each hectare you trawl from one year to the next then couldnt that mean there is more there to be caught??

Gazza

20-04-2006, 10:53 AM

double-edge sword mate.....e.g. per kg. of 'target' prawns

less bycatch??....more efficient!!
more bycatch??....less prawns available (as a percentage)

jmo...reduction in mortality of "bycatch" ,is the real key ;)
p.s. reduction in bycatch, brought aboard by waldo & co. is commendable , but "has to" happen...jmo

dinga1

20-04-2006, 11:31 AM

where did the bycatch photo come from??? looks like shallow ekp judging by the crabs, grinners and apogons in the shot done over a sandy bottom, off the sunny coast somewhere????

Gazza

20-04-2006, 12:55 PM

http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/far/12589.html

"The vast majority of these species have no commercial value and although they are returned to the water, many species die as a result of being trawled. The weight of the bycatch weight is generally several times (i.e. 5 to 10 times) that of the targeted catch of prawns and scallops"

dinga1

20-04-2006, 01:19 PM

hoppers deal with the mortality of bycatch but arent used in the east coast prawn fishery

rando

20-04-2006, 01:22 PM

The single largest component of bycatch reduction since introduction of the trawl plan has been reduction of effort.
If you want less bycatch reduce the effort.,,,,, Bring it on I say

The next most important thing is bycatch mortality, Legislate for universal use of hoppers on ALL trawlers AND the adoption of the MOST EFFECTIVE BRDs.

Rando

On a different tangent.
I have heard from an person who dives, that the trawl boundary in the bay is clearly defined on the seabed,
this is hear-say,but I am interested to know
can anyone confirm they have seen this, or is it an urban myth

rando

20-04-2006, 01:26 PM

oops double post

waldo35

20-04-2006, 03:30 PM

bidkev

20-04-2006, 03:46 PM

Kev,

so areas outside of their normal trawl grounds that may not usually get fished could have high level of bycatch species and hence when the effort shifts to these areas bycatch levels go up???? Could these unfished communities support the communities in the trawl grounds??

would a 40% reduction in effort lead to less bycatch???

Mate, if they don't usually get fished, I would assume (from what I have read) that it is likely because of high by-catch rates....that is, higher than the average. Too much like hard work sorting when you could perhaps be in better grounds that may give a lower catch but a higher return on effort and hence, profitability.

The recent fish kill on the Sunny illustrates this. That area wasn't usually fished due to the expected high by-catch (whiting) rates, but there was such a good run of prawns there, due to the wet, that some pros took the gamble with the results that we all have seen, and which has started the current controversy.

Yes, a 40% reduction in effort would lead to less by-catch in the fishery overall, but not neccessarily per fisher.

We mustn't lose sight of the fact that by-catch is not simply fish other than prawn, that is too small. It can be composed of monsters (although TED's are very efficient at excluding these) otherwise marketable fish that is prohibited to be landed, and,..........juveniles of the targetted species (prawn-too small for market).

The estuarine and bay trawl fishery is not only a pain to the rec fishers, but if the "offshore" pros stop to think about it, the estuarine and bay fishers also prevent the exodus of juvenile prawns (King, Tiger, Banana) to offshore which would otherwise later be caught in a better condition for marketing. The Bay fishery accounts in the main for greasyback with a few hardback and endeavour thrown in, (approx 70%) but estimates place the other 30% as King, Tiger and Banana which I would assume, and from what I have read, are not yet fully grown, but I would stand corrected on this if there is documentation proving otherwise.

The fishery (prawn) may appear to be sustainable, but as the fish that feed on prawn are not viably researched, there is (IMHO) a real danger that they will diminish in quantity due to food chain removals and by-catch trauma.

kev

It is not the lofty sails, but the unseen wind that moves the ship.

bidkev

20-04-2006, 03:52 PM

hey gazza great bycatch foto there. looks to me like about 2:1 by catch to catch[will include the crab as is pewrmitted species for trawlers] maybe 2.5:1 at the very outside. great to see others posting pictorial evedence to refute unfounded claims of 10;1 catch to bycatch.

Waldo, the 10:1 claim is taken from DPI&F documents. That aside, I think 2:1 is still pretty appalling.

Here's another pic from the NSW fishery.......discards being shovelled overboard.......hoppers could avoid this.

kev

dinga1

20-04-2006, 04:33 PM

bidkev

20-04-2006, 05:49 PM

data is scant on bycatch species but that doesnt mean they are in danger of being overfished. Until i see some more work done on bycatch species (difficult due to high numbers, where to start) i am not willing to suggest that the species caught in the bycatch are unsustainable as i am not convinced that the area impacted by trawlers doesnt allow populations elsewhere to support the fishing mortality of populations of species in the trawl grounds.

the survival of non fish bycatch eg crustaceans, echinoderms, sea snakes etc would be pretty good i would imagine

Mate, my gripe is with the fishing of nursery grounds and small fisheries like the Pine and Logan that cannot be replenished by natural means via "return to spawn".

If we take the juveniles from the nurseries, then they don't mature to come back and begat more juveniles. If we have 3 trawlers, simultaneously working a small area such as the Pine (as they frequently do) then something has got to give.

As I said on my closing of the by-catch/trawling thread, I intended to remain impartial until such time as I had gathered enough data to reach a sound conclusion. This was getting more and more difficult due to one lot of data being based on previous data....based on previous data blah blah. The inital data from the previous years is highly suspect to say the least and current data seems to constantly refer back to previous (sus) data. Yes, more observers are now on the water and we are all becoming more conscious/aware of the issues that are of great concern, but that isn't good enough for me to sit on my bum and wait till some data with *real, sound*base is published.

Seeing is believing, and any fool who'd never looked at a piece of research in his bloody life wouldn't need a text book to convince him of the reality of the carnage that was the Pine the other day. Anyone who doubts as to the sustainability of small fisheries such as the Pine need only compare recreational catches from 10 yrs ago to todays or simply take a walk down to deepwater bend on any day that those "pros" are working............mate, it's bloody appalling.

kev

It is not the speaker who controls communication, but the listener.

waldo35

20-04-2006, 06:23 PM

waldo35

20-04-2006, 06:30 PM

oh and kev as to the recco catches 10 yr ago

Although many fish captured by anglers are released (approaching 100 percent for some species), there can be substantial postrelease mortality (Muoneke and Childress 1994, Cooke and Suski forthcoming) as well as more subtle sublethal effects on growth and fitness (Cooke et al. 2002). Release mortality in recreational fisheries is analogous to bycatch discards in commercial fisheries, an internationally recognized conservation problem (Alverson et al. 1994).

In addition to contributing directly to global fishery declines through harvest or mortality, recreational fisheries can contribute to alterations in system function and quality. Harvest or postrelease mortality can act as a selective force in recreational fisheries (Policansky 1993), as it has been observed to do in commercial fisheries (Heino and Godo 2003). Although fewer examples exist in recreational fisheries, trophic or ecosystem-level effects can also be observed (McPhee et al. 2002). Environmental degradation from fishing was once attributed primarily to commercial activities (Dayton et al. 1995), but the recreational sector is now understood to have its fair share of responsibility (Cryer et al. 1987). Discarded fishing line and hooks can foul birds, marine mammals, corals, and other marine life, resulting in substantial injury and mortality (Cowx 2002, McPhee et al. 2002 ). Also, the accumulation of lead sinkers can result in mortality of waterbirds and have effects at higher trophic levels (Cowx 2002). Anglers may disturb wildlife, trample riparian vegetation to gain access to the water, and increase nutrient loading through ground baiting (distribution of organic bait to attract fish). Recreational boat traffic and the associated noise pollution, waves, erosion, and scarring also contribute to environmental degradation (Cowx 2002, McPhee et al. 2002).

Recreational fisheries are also responsible for an as yet undetermined degree of degradation offish stocks through fishery enhancement practices (Cowx 1998) or introductions (Cambray 2003). Notwithstanding these issues, the position of recreational fisheries must be balanced against the huge value (billions of dollars) of the sector to regional and local economies (Cowx 2002).

Recreational fishing and global fish crises

Several factors may explain the lack of attention to recreational fisheries in the consideration of global fishery crises. Collapses induced by recreational fishing may be difficult to detect (Post et al. 2002). Few long-term monitoring programs exist that could be used to detect declines in a global context. Furthermore, anglers exhibit complex behavior, and fisheries respond dynamically to exploitation (Post et al. 2002). Also, because recreational anglers represent a vocal and effective constituent group, the standard response to perceived or actual decline or alteration in population structure is supplementation (Cowx 1998). Hence, the impact of recreational fishing is typically addressed by curing symptoms rather than by addressing underlying causes.

like to hightlight the sector that says
release mortality in recco fisheries analogous to bycatch discards is commercial fisheries.
had to look up analogous;similar,paralell [oxford concise]
mmmmmmmm
sumthing about clean fingers and pointing......

realize i have posted this b4 but think u need to read it again

bidkev

20-04-2006, 07:51 PM

Waldo, I am familiar with Post et al, and Cowx and most of their research is aimed at the global recreational fishery.

Yes, there is no doubt that any fishing must impact on stocks, but that is not what is at issue here. Pointing the finger when one is pointed at you, does absolutely nothing to support an argument and if anything, only detracts from any defence.

I have looked at overseas fisheries and the problem they have is pretty much the same as we have here, in that there is not enough observers to see what is *actually* happening. Phone sampling and asking for a diary to be kept is not adequate IMHO and can only produce innacurate results when applied to the whole recreational sector.

We have bag limits and size limits that over time may well reflect the sustainability of rec fishing on it's current scale. We are policed, just as pro fishers are. There isn't much more we can do other than to subject our discards to minimum stress and keep within the legislation.

That is all we can do other than give up all together.

The issue here is: What more can the pros and Gov't do? and simply bouncing back with generalised (global) research aimed at reccos doesn't address what is being posed here.

Mate, I've seen it with my own eyes....often! A trail of dead and dying juveniles being picked off by gulls in a section of river less than 200 metres wide being trawled simultaneously by 3 trawlers! There's no excuse for it, there's little condemnation of it, it's absolutely lethal, devastating, short-sighted and downright disgusting. Why Fisheries cannot see that is beyond my comprehension!

kev

It is OK to let your mind go blank, but please turn off the sound

rando

20-04-2006, 08:12 PM

(snip)
Release mortality in recreational fisheries is analogous to bycatch discards in commercial fisheries, an internationally recognized conservation problem (Alverson et al. 1994).
[hr]

I would like to know whether this statement is #meant #to be #empirical , and if so how did the author arrive at the conclusion ,
how was this #measured?
Because I dont believe an accurate measurement method for post release mortality from rec fisher has been devised.

A recent experiment of this kind in NSW was inconclusive #due to limitations in the method. The experiment involved linecaught fish released into pens, #I cant quote all the details but the authors conceded the model was flawed as it did not sufficiently replicate release into the ecosystem.
The mortality rates were very low.
rando

waldo35

21-04-2006, 09:01 AM

rando

21-04-2006, 10:00 AM

Waldo
23 years ago pollution siltation and developement possably did exceed the effects of beam trawling , but it is drawing a long bow to suggest the same is so today, given the changes in environment laws.

bidkev

21-04-2006, 10:34 AM

[dredge 83] must be stressed that this research was pre teds and brds.

less than 10 % of fish caught by beam trawls important to reccos
disturbance by beam trawl imperceptible when compered to pollution,siltation from developement, habitat destruction from developement.
uni of queensland studies show recco sector recieving no benefit from clousure of beam trawl industry.
wmb oceanic survey of moretonbay and esturies concludes
'there is little evidence to conclude that beam trawling is having a significant impact on either stocks or habitats of species targetted in recco, fisheries. therefore it is unlikely that significant benefits to recco fishers would result from closing beam trawl fishery'.

perhaps this may shed sum light on fisheries decisions being based on science and not anyones personal opinions[ which i do believe has been slated prev. as an unwanted approach to debate on this threads]

::)less than 10 % of fish caught by beam trawls important to reccos

That's because they're juveniles. As Rando and self have repeated, it is the food chain that is important.

Disturbance by beam trawl imperceptible when compered to pollution,siltation from developement, habitat destruction from developement. ::)

Imperceptible when compared. The research is comparing. The degredaton of environment is on a "huge" scale so a comparison between the two may well arrive at that conclusion. "When compared to" does NOT mean that it is not of significance.

As for the "research" you have qouted. Care to give a pointer so that we can peruse the methodology? As I have stated, I consider the methodology in most research to date, to be highly sus.

kev

It is our responsibility, not ourselves that we should take seriously.

waldo35

21-04-2006, 06:16 PM

rando

21-04-2006, 07:32 PM

You dont need a string of letters after your name to be able to apply logic and reason to a problem
Kev has shown himself to have a keen understanding of ALL the issues associated with the task And also to be impartial.
He has researched the question of bycatch , absorbed the available information and drawn a reasoned conclusion.
that is exactly what anyone whether a full time academic, a politicion or as in Kevs case an interested layman would and can do.
It is simply churlish to suggest his efforts are wanting.
Rando

waldo35

21-04-2006, 08:28 PM

yeah yeah i know being a recco fisher bestows omnipitence good onya yawn

CHRIS_aka_GWH

22-04-2006, 08:47 AM

as uv stated in another post kev ur self educated which hey good onya me too. i would like to see some scientific credentials tho b4 im willing to accept ur personal opinion being anything more than that. all very well to call into question methodology but when this questioning is backed by nothing more than ur personal opinion then thats all it is .....not scientific evidence.
as to where the research comes from its quoted ........dredge 83 and wmb oceanics.

waldo,

i'll offer my string of letters in biological/ecological & physical science, mathematics, education & industrial design with post graduate garnishing .....
but kev doesn't need them, what he should be given is respect. The respect he offers others (always).

What he is doing, desemination of research, could easily gain him his own letters.

Scientific methodology is largely a study in the logic of cause & effect, and the control and /or understanding of the bias uncontrolled variables can produce.

One of the great triumphs of science is that it challenges others to be critical of it - it welcomes criticism - because critical evaluation affirms fact.

Kev is being scientific when he questions control & logic in interpretation.

chris
ps intelligence is not gained in a university, it is best developed in the school of life. The most intelligent & capable problem solvers I know have real life experience & very few "letters".

bidkev

22-04-2006, 10:00 AM

kev ur pictures show a fish trawl and from nsw so really its hardly evidence of anything.
as to what prawn is caught in the bay u should be asking rather than telling. the bay produces beautiful big prawns of all species.

It's evidence of how discards are treated on a particular boat. Now if that picture was used in a research doc (as it was) the reader could construe that it illustrates how the fishery as a whole, treats discards. The only *real* way to show this is not true, is to put observers on every boat. I am simply illustrating how current research does not neccessarily give a true picture of overall practice throughout the fleet.

Again, with regards to your comment " u should be asking rather than telling". I have "asked" research is about "asking" (seeking knowledge) The figures I qoute are from DPI&F research.

You can see how results from research can produce different conclusions for different people. ::) I assume that by you stating, "the bay produces beautiful big prawns of all species." that you are inferring that you disagree with my comments with regard to the fact that trawling inshore prevents some prawns from reaching maturity? Just because the bay produces "beautiful big prawns of all species." this does not mean that my statement is not true. That statement, again, was based on DPI&F research. In dismissing my research, you are in fact, dismissing their's........ research that's aimed at proving a sustainable fishery........it follows that if you are dismissing their research, then you have no evidence that the fishery is sustainable. Own goal mate.

kev

A lie has speed, but truth has endurance.

Gazza

22-04-2006, 12:09 PM

as uv stated in another post kev ur self educated which hey good onya me too. i would like to see some scientific credentials tho b4 im willing to accept ur personal opinion being anything more than that.
Waldo , would you accept "Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg" letters after his name... :-/ ...blindly.... 8-)

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,18732575%255E25717,00.html

you Waldo ,don't need 'quals' to have your opinion recognised as "hands-on experience" , 2-ways to skin a cat mate..... as i doubt many scientists have ever owned their own trawler either ;)

p.s. mate ,could you pull in a ton or 3 of 'redspots'....luv 'em :)

waldo35

22-04-2006, 04:59 PM

blah blah blah nothing new ur opinion most important yeah i get it good onya .

rando

22-04-2006, 05:51 PM

:-X ::)

BAIT_MAN

22-04-2006, 06:14 PM

It would be nice for you rando and waldo to AGREE TO DISAGREE then we can get on with the things that matter and that is to be a united force and win this war. We the recos have to work with the pros and pros will have to work with us to get what is best for everybody. So long as we continue to be at each others throats the goverment will keep rubbing it hands together and do as they please.

seatime

22-04-2006, 07:40 PM

At the heart of IT everyone posting on this thread, recs & pros, appear to agree. The problems we see today aren't going to go away on their own.
The depth of research and understanding of the issue displayed has been impressive. It is wonderful such passion exists, and as a result solutions can be found.
Clearly a united front will be the more effective tool of intervention and display of passion and commitment (no"divide and conquer"here).
Here's to success, we all enjoy the same natural resources, cheers.

rando

23-04-2006, 12:23 PM

Why would anyone support an industry whose members absolutely refuse to acknowledge ANY of the Rec Fishers concerns or even that we have a right to the resource and whose only interest is their paticular slice of the pie so they can turn a profit,?????

Derek_Bullock

23-04-2006, 01:15 PM

Why would anyone support an industry #whose members absolutely #refuse to acknowledge ANY of the Rec Fishers concerns or even that we have a right to the resource and whose only interest is their paticular slice of the pie so they can turn a profit,?????

Not sure that is a correct statement Rando.

I know that TFPQ has had a lot of discussions with the Pro Industry (perhaps KC could comment). I think we have to be careful that that the few individuals posting on here are not representative of the organisations in general and in a lot of cases are stating their own views.

Derek

BAIT_MAN

23-04-2006, 01:53 PM

You are so right Derek

The problem here is that most people do know what goes behind the closed doors because they don’t or wont get involved. It is fine to sit on the fence and have your say but I can tell you that if you were to get involved you soon learn to look at things a very different way and as I have said before we the recos have to work with the pros and the pros have to work with us. All this to get what is the best for everybody involved. UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL

Gazza

23-04-2006, 01:59 PM

Well ,maybe we could team up with the devil, and send the lock-it-up mob to HELL!! :D

rando

23-04-2006, 04:24 PM

I stand corrected. You gentlemen may be privy to the views not expressed here.
However that is the impression I am left with after this debate

BAIT_MAN

23-04-2006, 04:41 PM

I stand corrected. You gentlemen may be privy to the views not expressed here.
However that is the impression I am left with after this debate

Rob please dont take any thing to heart it is just that you need to get involved behind closed doors to find out what is going on. Below is a email i got today just to show you that the pros know that they have a problem and that they are trying to address it.

"No worries Shane, thanks for ur reply. As prev. mentioned the attachment contains an overview of the environmental management system with links to the complete draft copy [ which covers the beam,ottter trawl and inshore net fishery] . #I think that these documents will cover many of ur questions particularly w/ regard to the beam trawl industry. I think its important to realize that this document has been produced by fishers to proactively deal with issues of sustainability and environmental management.

Many of the issues being brought forward on recco websites such as hoppers for bay trawlers to decrease the mortality of bycatch are identified here as issues profishers must deal with to minimize the impacts arising from our currant harvesting techniques.maybe this is an area in which the recco industry could learn from the pros as there is much funding out there for the development of ems."

Regards Shane

rando

23-04-2006, 05:39 PM

Cheers Shane.
If you can Post , It would be helpful to see those discussion papers.

By the way
congratulations on your efforts to take these issues forward on our behalf. You have my support.
cheers
rando

PinHead

23-04-2006, 07:31 PM

BAIT_MAN

23-04-2006, 07:58 PM

Interesting about the "behind closed doors" meetings....are these between rec fishos and pros or other bodies such as pros, marine dealerships, tackle shop owners, chandlers etc. I am really interested as to where those that make their living from the fishing & boating industry stand on a lot of these issues as opposed to the issues the pro fishermen have...but then I suppose the dealers, tackle and chandler #vendors should also be classed in the pro category as they make their livelihood also from the industry...they are definitely different from the weekend fisho.

Pinhead

It seems that I could haven chosen my words a little wiser. #The use of "behind closed doors" #was not intended to imply any secret or priviledged discussions or liasons, but to highlight the fact that if you do not attend the public meetings and get involved, there is a very good chance that you may be behind the 8 ball when it comes to current and up to date developments on the issues that interest you. #Forums such as this are a great resource and tool, but cannot hope to cover all aspects of every issue.

In relation to the rec fishermen and the commercial and retail sector, I personally think it is important that we focus on fighting our common fight to keep our fisheries open, utilising whatever resources we can muster, because if we lose it, it will be game over for us all.