Cast netting

[kingtin]

Mate, You're fast losing credibility (with me). Just because an area may lend itself to rapid recolonisation and is impacted less than a 3 dimensional area doesn't mean to say that the damage IS minimal.

The effects of long term trawling in the same area is well documented. I don't intend to engage in any further discussion with you, as I can plainly see that you are in complete denial as to this impact and you minimise it just because land development is of greater impact.


Trawl nets may dislodge attached species such as sponges and modify the habitat and food chains. Possible effects of trawling also include changes in food webs, such as increased populations of scavengers such as seabirds, fish and crabs. A 1996 study by the CSIRO and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries showed that each pass of the trawl along the sea bed removes about 5% to 25% of the seabed life. However, there is a cumulative effect; seven trawls over the same area of seabed removed about half the seabed life, and 13 trawls removed 70% to 90%. JUST THINK OF THE SMALL AREA OF THE PINE AND THE FACT THAT THERE ARE 4 TRAWLERS WORKING IT !

[nonibbles]

I thought this thread was about th eeffects of cast nets we do seem to have altered our focus a bit here.
I use a cast net. Quite infrequently - probably 2 or three times a month when my target species are about (ie barra, fingermark and spanish mackerel - I am not a gun fisho but I can still bring a fish home for the table). I may get off about 20 shots before I am stuffed and usually all for what? 2 or 3 decent sized mullet for bait and up to 1/2 a kilo of prawn.
The river bed where I usually cast is silt over mud lying next to sand over mud. It has very little grass or weed but a healthy green algal growth which is exposed at low tide. This area is also has a good yabbie population and appears to be a good nursery for all inshore species as I have caught all manner of juvenile fish in my net - very few are meshed and swim away easily when tipped out of the pockets undamaged.
I would offer however, that the river bed causes more damage to my net than I cause to it due to natural littering of it by branches and other debris that has travelled there or been exposed with tidal action. I accept that as fair change.
I understand the comparitive argument re: trawl netting in estuaries and inshore nurseries but I did read the thread title as concerning cast net usage.

[rando]

Yep
I am a bit concerned that cast netting is doing its fair share of damage and was simply trying to gain the views of my fishing peers on the issue .
As to the rants of trawlermen in denial I wont go there again Ive covered that ground before and most long term users here know where i stand.

I cant see any benefit to supporting the trawling industry, they havent helped rec fishers in the past and wont in the future.

Kev
mind boggling amount of information and research yet again, thanks for your kind words.

Cheers
rando

[rando]

rando......
it seems to me that your arguing the veracity of scientific investigations based apon the conclusions not aggreeing with your personal beliefs.

Wrong. I just dont unquestioningly accept any statement not based on sound science ( that is: its provable & repeatable)

an interesting comment on barrage construction...... i dont think this refers to building "barrages" but rather to quote the dictionary ' subject to massive attack' which i think more than adequately describes the developement of any waterway in s/e qld.

It would adequately describe it "old cock" if it had said "barrage of construction "but i think in this case the author intended the verb to describe the noun.

oh you bagged out the enviromental management system developed by the m/b pro fishing community....good onya.....this coming from someone spruiking the recco industry which has no EMS in place to deal with its impacts.


A.Please indicate where i have spuiked the Recco industry.
B what is a recco industry?
any fisherman I know just goes out for a day on the water and tries to catch a fish. An industry by definition is an enterprise for profit.
How does this apply to me going out for a day fishing???


As to the figures re pro/recco banana harvest..........dpi&f where else

Again how was the figure arrived at ,, what was the means of measureing the rec catch.

Cheers rando

[bay trawler]

kingtin and rando
you blokes amaze me . youre so busy telling me ,anecdotally and with snippets gleaned from scientific papers, what the impacts of my industry are that you cant hear what it is my industry is doing about it.
go have a look at the ems, look at what it addresses, it all in there.
i have been accused of deriding people but now im in denial.......
again check the ems.
as to the man/woman in the boat on the water, well no he/she is not the industry rather the consumer that pays the backing industry. you cant argue that there are many industries that support,provide,enable you day on the water and that these industries dont profit from it.
As to me asking or needing support from the recco fishing lobby/industry/enthusiest i dont recall ever asking for it...
if there was anything asked it was that u read the ems...thats it.
oh and the hope that the fishing lobby so vocally in opposition of the pro fishing sector could come to the realization that we are all extractive industries working in the maritime context with impacts that need to be addressed.
as a pro fisher i stand by the ems.
good onya thanks for your time

[bay trawler]

ps rando check those figures for banana harvesting by each sector.
pro based on log books
recco based on estimation only.
hardly scientific to my mind .

[Jeremy]

thankyou Kingtin for your well researched response here. Made very interesting reading. I stand by my earlier comments.

Jeremy

[rando]

ps rando check those figures for banana harvesting by each sector.
pro based on log books
recco based on estimation only.
hardly scientific to my mind .

Exactly my point bay trawler , you are quite happy to quote estimations and 24 year old studies to support your argument yet try to argue we are not presenting a balanced or reasoned argument .
Which make me question the veracity of the rest of what you claim.

This will go no where, you cant see that the difference is that rec fishers only want to go and catch a feed from time to time, Most of us take a couple of feeds then stop because we want FRESH .Whilst you make your living by doing so and have little regard for impacts except on you capacity to make a buck.

Dont bother with a reply thanks. Ive heard all the arguments before and I am not buying any of it.
Rando

[bay trawler]

Dont bother with a reply thanks. Ive heard all the arguments before and I am not buying any of it.
Rando
thats the way rando bury ur head in the murky recco sand of were just some blokes on the water hows the few fish we take any impact
multiply that by the million recco fishers claimed by sunfish = a few million fish.
puhleeeeze.
un regulated uncontrolled, no accounting for effort creep no accounting for the substaincial increase in effort in terms of numbers.
no where in your blind rants about the effects of my industry do u ever acknowledge the impacts of urs.
every area i trawl that is fished by reccos i trawl up bait bags, fishing line, hooks lures etc.
it seems to me as u obviously havent investigated ythe ems that u are unwilling to do any research that might disagree with or challenge ur belief system.
feel free to answer....ive heard all ypur arguments before but im willing to enter into discourse on them.
chz.

[bay trawler]

Exactly my point bay trawler , you are quite happy to quote estimations and 24 year old studies to support your argument yet try to argue we are not presenting a balanced or reasoned argument .
Which make me question the veracity of the rest of what you claim

oh and rando if these impacts were impercepatable 24 years ago;
before introduction of teds and brds
before the restructure of the fishery which saw the moreton bay trawling fleet reduced from 300 boats to 80 odd with a similar rationalization in the beam trawl fleet
before all the effort put into restructuring and over meeting the dpf&i requirement of a 40% reduction in bycatch so that the industry is sustainable
before all of this
how much more imperceptable are these impacts now.
and again.....go look at the ems
good onya.

[rando]

So by your analysis we should not be allowed to take a couple of fish because there are a million of us.

As to effort reduction have a look who shouldered the burden of effort reduction through size and bag limits long before the commercial sector even acknowledged a problem in the fisheries.We are just as regulated as the commercial sector.

No where did I say or imply recreational fishing has no impact . In fact the start of this thread was my concern for the impact cast netting may be having.
So dont try and claim I am blind or bigoted.

I simply hold the view that the greatest impact comes from the commercial sector and until they assume "worlds best practice" they are not doing enough.

For instance the question of hoppers , a proven solution to by catch mortality . If there was a real commitment to the environment,you would find a way to adapt and apply the process to smaller boats. But rather than embrace a solution you know to exist you hedge, because its easier & cheaper to keep doing what you have been doing, and the environment pays the price .

Mate your argument that there is a vertical intergration between boat manufacturers tackle companies, fishing clubs etc in fact any of the miriad of businesses that supply liesure products and or services is pure bullshit, there is no such thing as a recreation fishing industry.
It is a recreational activity, that is all.

Unlike the commercial sector which has a structured process from harvest to consumer.

As to your EMS that you tout, in my opinion you are shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. The damage has been done.
By your own admission there were 300 boats harvesting the bay and the current thinking is 80 is sustainable , how then could the impact of the fleet have been imperceptable.
In my opinion you do not seem to apply reason or logic to the information you present.
It is my belief that the commercial sector was dragged kicking and screaming to the restucture process. They first raped the environment then demanded compensation to only rape it a bit.
If you want to enter into a debate with me Bay Trawler ,Go ahead but Ive been down this road before on these pages and I am more than confident I can rebutt any argument you present. You should perhaps read the previous debate , save us all a bit of time.

Goodonya
rando

[kingtin]

Large Hooks Reduce Catch-and-Release Mortality of Blue Cod Parapercis colias in the Marlborough Sounds of New Zealand

G. D. Carbines
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd., Post Office Box 6414, Dunedin, New Zealand

Abstract.—An experiment was conducted in early summer 1995 to determine the survival rate of sublegal-size (<33 cm total length) blue cod Parapercis colias after being captured and returned to the sea by amateur fishers using two types of hooks (6/0 and 1/0). At the same time, commercial cod pots captured blue cod for use as a control group. As fish were caught, they were subjected to either good or poor handling techniques and then placed into holding pots built specifically for the experiment. These were lowered to the sea floor and sequentially monitored during daylight hours for 2 weeks. No mortality of blue cod occurred with the 6/0 hooks, but fish caught using 1/0 hooks suffered 25% mortality by the end of the experiment. No control fish died during the experiment, and the type of handling technique used had no detectable effect on blue cod survival. The fact that all mortality occurred within 26 h, combined with observations of fish behavior, suggests that mortality was induced by blood loss rather than disease. The location of the hook wound was related to hook size, small hooks lodging in the gut or gill usually proved fatal. These findings suggest that the mortality of released blue cod would be minimized if fishers used larger rather than small hooks. The management of blue cod by size limit regulation is discussed in relation to these findings.

.................................................. ...........
Hooking mortality of two species of shallow-water reef fish caught by recreational angling methods

B. K. Diggles and I. Ernst
Abstract

The hooking mortality of two teleosts, the yellow stripey Lutjanus carponotatus (Lutjanidae), and the wire netting cod Epinephelus quoyanus (Serranidae), was examined for fish captured with lures and bait from shallow waters (<2 m) on the Great Barrier Reef. Total mortality for both species (n = 340 fish) over the 48-h observation period was low (1.76%). Baitfishing with single hooks caused a significantly higher post-release mortality rate (5.1%) than did lure fishing with treble or single hooks (0.4%), and was the hooking method most likely to cause bleeding and damage to vital organs. Death of fish was observed only in instances where hooks penetrated the pericardium or body cavity. Handling time was significantly affected by fish size and hooking location, did not vary significantly between fish species, and was significantly reduced when barbless hooks were used in both lure and baitfishing. One specimen of each species, deeply hooked in the gut or oesophagus while baitfishing, was allowed to retain the hook; both fish survived and subsequently regurgitated the hook during the observation period. The relevance of these data to management of line fisheries on the Great Barrier Reef is discussed.
Marine and Freshwater Research 48(6) 479 - 483

.................................................. .................................................



Prawn trawlers in Moreton Bay, Queensland, discard about 3000 t of material each year. About 3% floats, and the rest sinks. The floating component is almost entirely fish. At night, floating discards are eaten by silver gulls (Larus novaehollandiae), crested terns (Sterna bergii) and, to a lesser extent, dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). There is little trawling during the day but the last discards are dumped overboard around dawn. At this time cormorants (Phalacrocorax varius) join the scavengers. Birds and dolphins scavenged only fish and cephalopods, and not crustaceans nor echinoderms. Birds are selective as to the size of fish they will eat, but most of the whole fish in the discards are below 50 g, and the largest fish that crested terns ate was 100 g. Dolphins are capable of taking the largest of the discarded fish.
Most of the material that sinks is crustaceans (54%) and echinoderms (18%); the rest is elasmo- branchs and rubble. At night, about half of the fish that sink are eaten by diving birds and by dolphins. There was no indication of mid-water scavenging of sinking discards, except for cormorants and dolphins in the upper water column. Approximately 11% of the discards that reach the bottom comprise fish and crustaceans, which are eaten by crabs (Portunus pelagicus) and fish. The remainder- chiefly crabs, echinoderms and elasmobranchs-reach the bottom alive. Altogether, about 20% of discards are eaten by surface and bottom scavengers.



Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 41(1) 27 - 36



.................................................. .................................................. ...............

[bay trawler]

for starters
Recreational and commercial fisheries differ with respect to the systems they target. Recreational fisheries have access to most of the world's freshwater systems as well as the nearshore regions of the oceans, including estuaries, reefs, mangroves, and embayments, while large-scale commercial fisheries operate in more accessible locales (based on depth and economic profitability), often more distant from coastal regions or in larger inland water bodies. The nearshore zones targeted by recreational fishing are often critical habitats for multiple life stages of many fish (e.g., spawning, nursery, feeding, migration; Jackson et al. 2001), and recreational fishers often target immature life stages in these regions (McPhee et al. 2002).
Evidence of the negative consequences of recreational fishing harvest in both freshwater and marine systems is mounting rapidly. In Canada, four important inland fisheries showed evidence of collapse that could be attributed to recreational fishing (Post et al. 2002). In marine systems, this problem has become evident with the imposition of protected areas. Reserves that permit recreational fishing show differences in population structure and abundance from those where no fishing is permitted (Schroeder and Love 2002). There are many examples in which the recreational harvest rates for individual species exceed those of commercial fisheries (Schroeder and Love 2002, US Department of Commerce 2003).
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.

as to the 3000 t discard minus 8% rubble
minus 72 % bycatch returning alive
= 600 t representing the 20% of the discards being eaten by other taxa in mb.

if as chrisweb estimates queenslanders harvest 8787 t of seafood/ annum and chrisweb again 23% of this harvest is in moreton bay then the measure of the recreational impact is 2021 t.


the difference between the moreton bay prawn industry and the recreational 'industry' is that the prawning industry is finite with effort capped .
the population of se qld continues to explode.
chz

[kingtin]

This seems to have gone right away from the subject of cast netting but because certain issues have been raised, I consider mine, and other responses to be valid.

From the last post "Collapses induced by recreational fishing may be difficult to detect (Post et al. 2002)."

Exactly! "Difficult to detect"

To the best of my knowledge, all research done in regard to the recco sector is based on anecdotal evidence (diaries, tel surveying etc) and as such, is highly suspect. There is only supposition based on anecdotal evidence. That is not to say that it may well be understating the problem of recreational impact, but the more likely scenario is that it is overstating it. All I am pointing out is that we should only act on "scientific proof" and the methods of research on the rec sector is (self -admitted by the DPI&F and CSIRO) leave a lot to be desired.

The pro sector OTOH, has been researched via quantifiable methods (monitors on board, logged landings, mortality research etc) and the findings are accepted as 'scientific".

No recco fisher in their right mind would deny that they impact on the environment, but they would also submit that the rec fishery is, in the main, doing it's very best to minimise that impact.

I repeat:

Trawl nets may dislodge attached species such as sponges and modify the habitat and food chains. Possible effects of trawling also include changes in food webs, such as increased populations of scavengers such as seabirds, fish and crabs. A 1996 study by the CSIRO and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries showed that each pass of the trawl along the sea bed removes about 5% to 25% of the seabed life. However, there is a cumulative effect; seven trawls over the same area of seabed removed about half the seabed life, and 13 trawls removed 70% to 90%. JUST THINK OF THE SMALL AREA OF THE PINE AND THE FACT THAT THERE ARE 4 TRAWLERS WORKING IT !

The above is undeniable, as is:

I see first hand the dead fish floating in the Pine as do many of the members here. We see clearly those skippers throwing fish to the gulls and egrets. We SEE it with our own eyes. It isn't something that we've read about in a research paper or have anecdotal evidence of.........IT'S HAPPENED, IT'S HAPPENING NOW, AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN and I don't for a minute think the MBAA will do a damn thing about it and neither will any body or pressure group that has a professional trawler operator withing it's ranks.

How can anyone consider the pro sector, or even the DPI&F to be doing ALL possible to minimise the impact on the fishery whilst the above is still happening in a fishery such as the Pine. If the DPI&F were serious about the negative impact of estuarine trawling, then they would lobby for a compulsory buy back of licences, even if it meant paying exorbitant prices for those licences........just to keep the pro lobby sweet.

There have been some excellent, balanced, debates in the past, with pro fishers, some of whom even invited me out on their boats when I did my last research. Unfortunately, it appears to me, that of late, there have been certain pros, who, whenever the going gets tough in the debates, go into complete denial with regard to their impact, and try to "escape" via pointing the finger at the recco sector. These are the very same pros who say that we should stand "shoulder to shoulder" via the MBAA. How can that be achieved when the emphasis seems to be on "fingering the culprit" whilst denying a crime took place.

I'm tired of this debate..............it's gone on before. I'm Hard Done TO et al or
New Age Prawn Fisher et al now hold no sway with me. You can stick all the research that I've covered right up your bloody cod end! I shall repeat again.............for those in denial, for those who claim to be innocent, for those who say that they are changing, for those who wish to blame the recco sector, for those pollies with vested interests, and now, especially, for those who wish to be allied with the recco sector whilst at the same time pointing the finget at them:

Trawl nets may dislodge attached species such as sponges and modify the habitat and food chains. Possible effects of trawling also include changes in food webs, such as increased populations of scavengers such as seabirds, fish and crabs. A 1996 study by the CSIRO and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries showed that each pass of the trawl along the sea bed removes about 5% to 25% of the seabed life. However, there is a cumulative effect; seven trawls over the same area of seabed removed about half the seabed life, and 13 trawls removed 70% to 90%.

JUST THINK OF THE SMALL AREA OF THE PINE AND THE FACT THAT THERE ARE 4 TRAWLERS WORKING IT !

I rest my case, but before I depart this thread, I think somewhere back there was mention of the economics of fishing so this may be interesting.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation
TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2001/s360578.htm
Broadcast: 06/09/2001
Tailor debate focuses on love and money

Reporter: Simon Royal

SIMON ROYAL: It's early Friday morning, but already the Moreton Island ferry is filling to the gunnels with hopeful weekend fishermen.

MAN1: It's just one of those, I suppose, as the wives call it, a male bonding thing.

We just go over, have a few beers and just have a good time basically.

Just get away, the Australian sort of life and that's it.

SIMON ROYAL: And if you catch something?

MAN 1: If we catch a fish it's a bonus, yes.

But if we don't we'll just have another beer.

MAN 2: Fishing for me is just time out, get away from everything.

Just sit back on the boat and relax.

If you catch something, it's a bonus, if you don't, well, you still enjoyed yourself being out on the water.

SIMON ROYAL: But not all recreational fishers are so relaxed, returning with just a haul of stories about the ones which got away.

For Ian Murphy, a member of the recreational fishing lobby group, Sunfish, his pastime is also a serious business, one he feels isn't getting due recognition.

IAN MURPHY, RECREATIONAL FISHERMAN: We're just people that go out and spend a bit of time on the water, have a bit of fun and don't contribute anything to the economy.

In fact, a lot of people view us as beer-drinking idiots, but in actual fact, recreational fishermen in their pursuit of a bit of leisure time spend an enormous amount of money.

SIMON ROYAL: At this time of year, there's one prize every keen fisherman values above all others -- the tailor.

IAN MURPHY: They're not one of the world's best eating fish, but especially here in south-east Queensland they are considered a good sport fish and fishermen really do target them.

SIMON ROYAL: Not that Ian Murphy is having much luck today, and he's facing competition in his quest for the tailor.

Further around Moreton Bay, Frank Lee is setting his nets.

He's one of 70 commercial beach fishermen working this area for the tailor.

FRANK LEE, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN: Nearly 30 years I've been a fisherman.

My whole life I've lived on this beach, virtually.

30 years I've been earning a good living out of it.

It's put my eldest kids through university.

We're definitely an integral part of the community here.

All our customers don't reckon it tastes like crap.

They're keen to get it.

They'd eat more of it, if they could get it more regularly.

SIMON ROYAL: This is the fish everyone is after.

Commercial fishermen like Frank Lee catch 200 tonnes a year, but recreational fisherman take far more than that - almost 500 tonnes of tailor.

There's no restriction on either sector.

HENRY PALASZCHUK, QLD MINISTER, PRIMARY INDUSTRIES: The latest signs that I have on the tailor fishery especially, is that it's a sustainable fishery, going under the current arrangements.

SIMON ROYAL: This fish fight, though, isn't being driven by environmental concerns.

Rather, it's about economics, with each side claiming it makes the better use of a limited resource.

IAN MURPHY: The argument is, there's probably 50 people, or 50 commercial fishermen in Queensland, taking 200 tonnes of tailor and the latest figures, they're selling for about $1.54 a kilo.

So, if you do the simple economics, they're raising $300,000 -- they're injecting into the economy.

Whereas if you look at the recreational fishermen, to catch their 500 tonne, are probably injecting close to $100 million into the economy.

So, where's the simple economics in that?

FRANK LEE: Well, they might redistribute some income but there's no primary generation of wealth.

There's a lot of people depend on us for their fresh fish.

Over two-thirds of the population never go fishing and they rely on commercial fishermen for their product.

SIMON ROYAL: Now, this unusual economic argument has spread beyond the fisherman to enmesh the experts.

Environmental lawyer Tom Young, has studied the economic impact of fishing around Hervey Bay.

He believes recreational fishing has been radically undervalued.

TOM YOUNG, ENVIRONMENTAL LAWYER: For years we've been led to believe that the commercial fishing industry is making the best economic use of the resource.

However, recent figures and show that the recreational sector is equally making significant contribution.

SIMON ROYAL: Other experts are unimpressed.

PROFESSOR TORNADO HUNDLOE, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, UNI OF QLD: It is voodoo economics.

It's a lot of damn nonsense.

The more money you spend tells you nothing about how important something is in an economic sense.

I mean the rule of economics, is to be as efficient as you can.

Catch your fish using as less fuel, oil, machinery, labour as you possibly can.

So it's the complete reverse of normal conventional economics.

SIMON ROYAL: For the moment, the Queensland Government is keeping out of the argument, hoping the two fishing groups will sort it out themselves.

HENRY PALASZCHUK: It would be very easy for me to come out and say, "I want to see this, which is, a total allowable catch for the commercial sector based on history."

I can come out and say, "I want to see a bag limit of 20 tailor per day for the recreational sector".

I can do that, but I think in this new world of consultation we need to sit down together as a recreational and a commercial group and work on the issue together.

IAN MURPHY: Management has to step in and say, "Right, a bag limit for recreational fishermen and quotas for commercial fishing."

Then, it's fair.

SIMON ROYAL: The winter tailor season finishes in a few weeks, but next year the fish will be back, bringing with them another round of arguments.

[lattic]

Pickers well said mate, to all the other responses in this topic, get over it, spend your time out fishing or with the family than typing in front of the computer for 30 mins.
muz