Cast netting

[Jeremy]

un regulated uncontrolled, no accounting for effort creep no accounting for the substaincial increase in effort in terms of numbers.

are you serious ? There are very substancial regulations and controls on the recreational fishing sector. Plus you are not taking into account the large numbers of fish that are released unharmed due to size limits, bag limits, or excess to personal needs.

I guess maybe you mean the total size of the rec catch, which is unlimited. In that case, let's roll out some facts and reasoning. The total value of the recreational fishing industry to the Australian economy is valued at somewhere between 10 and 100 times the value of the professional industry (no I don't have the figures on me). The pros catch more than the recs, but that is OK because all Australians have a right to eat seafood, right? Well hang on, over 70% of all Australian caught seafood is exported, and 90% of the seafood eaten by Australians is imported......so how can you justify an industry which takes a far greater share of the catch than the recs for a far smaller total dollar value to the Australian economy, has envoronmental and sustainability issues, and exists predominantly for the export dollar (ie to support itself)? The answer is, you can't.

The Qld DPI&F has published some interesting data on the catch rates by recs and pros on a number of different species. Can't find it right now, but it made interesting reading and seemed a reasonable estimate to me. But what the commercial quotas and catch reports don't take into account is the huge amount of bycatch of juveniles of many different species which is dumped back into the ocean dead. There was a big uproar about this last year in SEQ when alot of bycatch washed onto the beach. The pros dumped it on the wrong tide, wind, too close to shore or something. The rest of the time it is out of sight out of mind to most people.

Jeremy

[kingtin]

First off, my apologies. To those who know me well and know that I don't normally bring things down to a personal level.

bay trawler
isn't it funny how one eye people only see what gets up the nose , ask any of these people what and how modern trawl gear works and I bet 99% of them are wrong. the damage was done years ago by the old heavy gear that is no longer used , get with the times , TECNOLOGY is in there somewhere gee I must have left it on the wharf again "bugger"
most people would crap them selves if they saw the gear my father used in the bay 35 years ago and now "castnet damage"
give me a break
pickers

What exactly have you witnessed Pickers and what research have you done?
To quote yourself, "give me a break" mate. You're the one with one eye, although even that one doesn't seem to be working too good. Just because things have improved doesn't mean that things are ok. Chains are still being dragged along the sea floor causing the damage that I have illustrated here and that is quantifiable, not anecdotal. The Pine is still being stripped as are major and minor estuaries (nursery grounds).

I have published research here in the past, that shows (proves) that despite leaps and bounds in the development of BRD's and TED's, by-catch is still a major problem eg In estuarine trawling, juvenile fish don't have enough swimming speed to escape via some BRD's.

Just because there is improvement, that doesn't exonerate the perpetrators of the past, or present for what is still happening.

What has been shown by Rando starting this thread is that we are concerned about our impact, and you simply deride that by saying, "castnet damage"
give me a break.

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

Muz, Just what do you think you have contributed to this debate? What kind of world do you live in? The days of emulating the ostrich is long gone. As, Jeremy says, "apathy is the enemy".

If you don't want to debate, then that's ok, but what right have you to tell me, or anyone, to "get over it" If you don't give a shit, then that's OK. You just sit back mate and let others worry about the state of the fishery and fight for the right to a sustainable fishery for ALL. If you have evidence to disprove the research, then please feel free to enlighten me/us, rather than engaging in pointless admonishment of those who DO care and who try to enlighten others by illustrating the problems that the fishery faces. If you do care, but don't wish to be involved in the debate, that is fine, but why put yourself out, typing a non-contributory post when you could be out with the family fishing?

Being laid back is one thing, being totally dismissive of a problem and more or less inferring to others that they should get a life when they are deeply concerned, is another.

I put it to you that the likes of me, and others who are "typing in front of the computer for 30 mins" do so simply because we DO want to be out with the family fishing, not just now, but in the future. We do so, because we have the balls to fight for what we believe in, and we aren't prepared to sit back and let others fight on our behalf.

That's ok, if you don't want to fight a cause. That's OK if my fight, and the fight of others can benefit those who don't want a fight, or even don't want others to fight on their behalf. It's all OK.......... I'm not going to be small minded enough to say that they don't deserve a safer happier planet. I'm not going to say, that by minimising a major problem they minimise the sacrifices of those in the past and should be grateful to those who "stood up and were counted" I'm not going to say that they should get off their arses and take a SERIOUS look at what is happening around them. I'm not going to say that once, and if, they have taken that look, do they not owe it to their future generations to safeguard their future..........after all, those future generations will consist of their children and grandchildren. I'm not going to say that enjoying your family now, whilst not debating about, and fighting for, what you believe in, is wrong. I'm simply going to say that it is your prerogative to do as you wish.

What I am going to say though, is that if you have nothing substantial to contribute to the debate other than to attempt to dictate to me how better to spend my time, then please, "shut the cluck up". If you don't like my debates, then don't read and please don't worry about how I should be better spending my time...........you just make sure that you're spending time catching fish with your family, it may not be that way for long if we all had your attitude. I'll continue to spend time with my family in the way that I see fit. I will continue to educate them via letting them read what I write, as I would hate them to think that what they enjoy is simply provided by the fights of others. I would like them to know that I have been part of the fight to preserve their lifestyle and I would hope that one day, they too would take up the banner of a cause, and not simply hope that things will all turn out OK in the end, or that others will do their fighting for them. IOW, I would never tell them to "get a life" as opposed to getting a "cause". We all have different views of how our "life" should be, and lived.

If I misunderstood you, and you are genuinely concerned for me and my families lifestyle, as opposed to my supposition that you are questioning my right to debate and fight for what I think is a just cause, and you genuinely believe that the best course of action to confront our problems is simply to go fishing, then I apologise


cheers

kev

[BAT]

I recently purchased and learn't how to throw a cast net and was astounded how deadly effective they are. In the wrong hands they most definately would have potential to rape area's. Does anyone know the history of when and why they where banned in other states?

[pickers]

Kintin
I have only 2yrs ago left the fishing industry , my father was a fisherman and also my brother, I've watched the decline of ALL the resourses over a very long period.
I've worked on trawlers in morton bat as well as offshore , reef fishing boats on the GBR and am a madkeen recco fisherman with 38yrs up my sleeve. I don't go fishing hoping to load up a huge esky with fish I can't possilby consume , I like to bring home a couple of fish to have a feed of fresh fish for my family.
T he problem is quite simple , the government did jack squat to regulate the industry many years ago and let the rape and pillage of our stocks go unchecked and now we ALL fight to to keep something to pass on the our kids and so forth.
Everybody seems to be able to point the finger at some other person or persons to blame for the degrading of our resourses but never look at themselves , WE have ALL contributed our fair share and anybody without guilt is a LIAR.
This is a good healthy debate and it will hopefully open peoples eyes to what has happened and ALL band together to save our resourses and if you want to point a finger start with yourself and then look further afeild.
pickers

[bay trawler]

jeremy almost all of the seafood harvested by the professional sector in moreton bay is consumed by southeast queenslanders. the remainder is sold interstate. whilst what you say has some truth to it for other fisheries it is definately not the case in moreton bay.

[kingtin]

Pickers,

the only people that I point a finger at is those who, because they think that things have improved, deny that there is still a problem or that one party only is purely to balme for declining fish stocks and damage to the environment.

When I first embarked on researching the inshore trawl industry, it was not because I thought that reccos were not contributing to the decline in fish stocks, that the pros were purely to blame, or that the pros weren't trying to create a sustainable fishery. I did so because I am averse to shooting my mouth off withour first availing myself of facts.

There was a lot of finger pointing going on at the time, most of it based on anecdotal evidence, with little basis in science.

I was neutral at that time as those who have been here since I researched BRD's will attest to. I even closed my thread on BRD's with my unqualified support for what the DPI&F was doing at the time despite their lack of resources.

Since then, I have continued to see the trawlers working the PIne and anyone who thinks that the constant beam trawling of such a small nursery is sustainable must have their head up their cod end.

Yes, my views are changing, sometimes science is not enough and anecdotal evidence needs to be shouted from the rooftops as I am doing here. I shall repeat yet again, those members here who fish the Pine see it with their own eyes..........the fish corpses left for the gulls to pick off the surface and thrown to the egrets. This is not rocket science and doen't need the reasoning of "one eyed men" to point the finger..........it is cold hard evidence, anecdotal or not.

Sorry mate, but as long as this is happening, i cannot be reconciled with the pro sector, either through the MBAA or any other body. When the guilty parties hold up their hands, agree to work together, accept responsibility, then yes, I can be reconciled. but asking for reconciliation when still in denial, is simply not enough. THE PRACTICES OF LONG AGO, OF WHICH YOU SPEAK, ARE STILL HAPPENING.

[pickers]

Kintin
so what sort of fishing do you do??

[kingtin]

Kintin
so what sort of fishing do you do??

I'm a recco. Relevance?

kev

[pickers]

ever worked as a pro??
pickers

[Jaffo]

Iam am rec fisho, I prawn the Pine and a few other rivers and bay. I to have a by catch which the sea birds get a free feed, but not to the levels of a beam trawler. But you add all those cast nets up in rivers and bay and see what the numbers are. I was out from the airport 2 weeks ago to get a feed or 2 of prawns there was over 80 boats casting nets and ther was by catch....

[kingtin]

ever worked as a pro??
pickers

Pro bait supplier. Pro cockler, deck hand on charters, deckie on inshore trawler, and deckie on shrimper. All in the UK.

kev

[pickers]

none here hey

[kingtin]

none here hey

No, who'd want to employ a whingeing pom?

Again, what's the relevance? Mate, I've seen first hand what the otter trawl can do to British fisheries.......there's none left. I consider the beam trawl to be far more damaging.

I've seen the UK cockle industry resort to employing illegal immigrant labour to make a quicker buck resulting in the deaths of the labour force.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...re/3464203.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4582470.stm

That happened after I came to Oz. Prior to coming, I wondered why my services were less in demand, now I know why.

A ditty for you

The Final Trawl

Archie Fisher Now it's three long years since we made her pay
Sing haul away, my laddie O
And we can't get by on the subsidy
And sing haul away, my laddie O
So it's heave away for the final trawl
It's an easy pull for the catch is small
Now it's stow yer gear, lads, and batten down
Then I'll take the wheel, lads, and turn her round
And we'll join the Venture and the Morning Star
Riding high and empty beyond the bar
For I'd rather beach her on the Skerry Rock
Than to see her torched in the breaker's dock
And it's when I die you can stow me down
In her rusty hold where the breakers sound
Then we'll make the Haven and the Fiddlers Green
Where the grub is good and the bunks are clean
For I fished a lifetime, boy and man
And the final trawl scarcely makes a cran



And an illustration of why the subject is so emotive to me


End of the line for fishing?

All tied up and nowhere to go


British deep sea fishing is in crisis. It's not a labour or territorial dispute; it's the simple lack of fish. The chances are that the last fish supper you ate was with a fish that had been flown into the country. Why? Fish have been landed, sorted and sold around Britain's coastal towns for generations.
But now, trawlers, nets and fishermen are increasingly lying idle.
Cod, a fish that has become an endangered species


Fish merchants keep watch over empty markets as they mull over thoughts of better days before entry to the, then, EEC and the "selling out" of their fishing rights.
The Common Fisheries Policy has always stuck in their gullets.
The industry is in decline with collapsing fish stocks. It has been a mess for years. But the EU is seeking to change the policy soon.
Can the EU get it right this time?
Negotiations on the common fisheries rules take place every 10 years. Reforms, this time round, are due to be announced very soon, after years of rowing have forced delays.
None the less, the former king of the fish supper - the cod - is now an endangered species.
The fishing industry is not blameless.
Trawlermen have shot themselves in the foot over many years too. They have extensively used small mesh nets that catch young fish, leaving poor breeding stock.
Combined with nature striking an added blow, with sea temperatures being unsuitable for breeding, the end result has seen the steep demise of the cod.
That quaintly British diet is in danger



Politicians fail fishermen
After the lapse in fishing during the World War II, fish stocks became plentiful. The UK fishing industry enjoyed prosperity.
But in the early 70's, Ted Heath's government took British fishing into stormy waters with membership of the Common Market.
At the last minute, the existing six EEC members established their new Common Fisheries Policy, which, in essence, allowed open fishing around all coastal waters.
Britain's fishing industry has always been an emotive subject - one of the top British negotiating officials commented: "The fishing issue is economic peanuts, but political dynamite."
James Prior, the chief negotiator, lit the touch-paper in the hope of retaining a 12-mile exclusion zone, but Edward Heath curbed his actions, accepting a six-mile zone instead.
Fishermen are changing their catch


Norway was negotiating their entry to the EEC at the same time. But they decided to withdraw in order to protect their fish stocks. This was additional bad news for Britain.
A Cod War
Worse was to follow. Iceland decided to establish a 200-mile exclusion zone to protect its fish stocks. A vicious stand off with Britain became a repeat of the previous two "Cod Wars".
British Trawlers were forced to fish even closer to home.
Faced with dwindling stocks and increased trawler numbers from EEC members, there was a collective blaming of the Soviet "factory ships" for dwindling numbers of fish.
But this proved to be a "Red Herring".
The EEC's fishing policy was flawed. It portrayed fishing in the same way as making steel or growing potatoes - the higher the production or total catch, the better.
Fishing has never been an easy living


There was little or no planning for the future. Fish stocks were treated as limitless. Whilst scientists' warnings of diminishing stocks were largely ignored, their expertise on improving fishing techniques was eagerly grasped.
Politicians were lobbied by fishing communities to keep quotas high and everyone seemed blind to the fact of impending doom for the fishing industry.
Ironically, when catch quotas and net mesh restrictions were eventually imposed, trawler-men reacted with contempt.
It was common practice when trawlers had landed their quota, further catches would be made and sold through a fish "black market". This illegal practice was almost impossible to police.
One of the last nails in the fishing boat coffin was Britain's blinkered eating habit. Chips would not be quite right with any other fish other than cod. The stocks have rapidly plunged even further.
So what now?
The European Union has a thorny problem to resolve. Do they keep the fishing industry infrastructure in tact, with nothing to fish or, do they take draconian action to save fish for the future?
As the saying goes: "You can't please all of the people all of the time."

[kingtin]

What's the above to do with this thread? Possibly nothing, other than to illustrate that I'm as passionate about the exploitation of people as I am about the exploitation of the environment.

kev

[disorderly]

I dont know what relevance this is,but in the fresh fish section of IGA innisfail today,the countries represented were South Africa,Uganda,Thailand,Vietnam and New Zealand.And the prawns I think were from Indonesia.The trend continued in the frozen section.
There was not one Aussie fish to be seen.
Does this indicate that we are raping our own stocks to make export dollars and then importing this sad excuse for seafood?
It makes no sense to me.

cheers scott