Tin Can Bay fishing

[Big_unit]

Everyone calling for "bans" stop the rot now and just stop fishing. Lead from the front, take your own advice and get your boats out of the water. Heres a better closure solution, using my local boat ramp as the border for the first 6 months of the year all fishing to the north will be banned for the next six all fishing to the south will be banned, what a great idea !! If anyone is worried about a delicate environments stay the hell away from it, part of the problem then solved.

Its people with your attitude that make this issue far worse than it has to be, it can be sorted out effectively and with good outcomes for all parties.

Oh thats right your a local you have more rights than anyone else because you know these pro's would never do anything that affected the long term sustainability of the GSS fishery. I think if you didnt wear your heart on your sleeve you might realise that there is a problem.

If the " delicate environment " ( to put it in your own words ) is worth worrying about then dont you want to make certain it remains one the greatest fisheries on the east coast of Australia ?

The GSS pro's are most certainly the major problem and the general public is finally realising this, they will be stopped. I dont agree with " share farmers " or the type of people that damage pro's gear but by the christ I would turn blind eye to it if I saw it. Its natures way of balancing things out you know !!!

Cheers
James

[WHALEOIL]

Thanks for the interesting reading fellas. Lovey80, it is not just Botany Bay that has benefited from pro buy outs. Pros have been bought out all up and down the coast.
The revenue from the fishing license has been used in other ways also. http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/recreational/where-fishing-fees-go

A friend of mine was a pro netter in JervisBay. He welcomed the buy out. He said when he first started netting; it took an hour to run the nets and half a day to sort them.
When he finished up, there was sweet FA to sort.
Pros need to make a living and if I was one, I would like the option to be bought out or not.
I used to cart Semi loads of sand out of Tin Can but unfortunately, I never fished it. It was defiantly a beautiful spot.

[elprez]

Read that qoute of mine again and still cant see any mention of pros in it James. You might want to climb down off your shetland and read it again. I'm making reference here to bans being mentioned for rec fishers.

[sneaky]

hey Nowhere Bob is that the aeroplane under your name that you hope to get on one day and go some where remote to catch a fish. Your a nob head, you dont want an arguement but you went for the throat, i have a family history dates back well over 100years in both the fishing and Oyster industry, one of these industries is sustainable the other is not. As an oyster farmer you maintain your enviroment, you put back what you take out of our waters, in my grandfathers day the fisherman started out with a wooden boat & a set of oars, can you imagine how big Tin Can Bay would be if you only had a timber boat and a set of oars, it would be a long way just to the green marker off Inskip Point, ive been to Frazer Island before and after the proffessional Fisho's have been all over it. They make a difference. I grew up on a river were fish stocks used to be plentifull, we watched this place change. It wasnt pollution that changed it, you could and can still, read a news paper on the bottom at 30ft at the top of the tide.

Progession of industry and tecnology has given the Fisherman wat they needed to keep up with society not with the depleting fish stocks. Bigger Boats, Faster Boats, Bigger Nets, Better Quality Nets, They evan make nets that glow in the dark for fish attraction, when will it end, when there all gone, cause im pretty sure the average breeding cycle can not keep up with this sought of battering.

Dont get me wrong the Fisho is entitled to make a living just as much as you and i but sometimes i feel they're just shitting in their own nest.

[Nowhere Bob]

Ok, I'm a nob - I've been called worse.
Just what was it about my posts that upset you Sneaky?
I'm guessing that you are sugesting that aquaculture (Oysters) is sustainable, while all other forms are not?
I really dont know much about the oyster trade except that the racks provide structure for losing lures to, and it's a hell of a lot of work in @rse deep water. I was told that the racks were treated with creosote, can you confirm?
One of the things I was trying to get across was that a netter I know has been taking boxes of whiting off the same bank in the GSS for 30 years. I would suspect that if this was unsustainable then surely his catch would have dropped off inside this timeframe.
Sneaky speaks about the days of row boats & natural fibre nets, Um, yep again no argument from me; Pro pressure certainly has increased over the last 30-40 years. As has rec pressure. This increase in 'fishing effort' needs to be managed.

So using short words & sentances I was rude / upseetting how?

[Big_unit]

Read that qoute of mine again and still cant see any mention of pros in it James. You might want to climb down off your shetland and read it again. I'm making reference here to bans being mentioned for rec fishers.

More like you absolutely did say it, just not in that particular quote -

Well said Chris and I couldnt agree more on Kauri. With closures I know that pro's ie trawlers swamp areas on opening ( yes I do have mates who are pro fishermen)so do they really work, I'm not convinced.

and your next point is ?

Cheers
James

[Big_unit]

One of the things I was trying to get across was that a netter I know has been taking boxes of whiting off the same bank in the GSS for 30 years. I would suspect that if this was unsustainable then surely his catch would have dropped off inside this timeframe.

For mine that doesnt make it right or acceptable. Just means to me that for 30 years he has hammered fish stocks and is responsible for a definite decline in Whiting stocks and any other species which rely on Whiting.

Ive heard plenty of pro's at GSS meetings in recent months complain that they are working harder than ever to maintain viable & profitable catches.

Are they telling porkies ? if so why ?

Cheers
James

[Nowhere Bob]

Ive heard plenty of pro's at GSS meetings in recent months complain that they are working harder than ever to maintain viable & profitable catches.
Are they telling porkies ? if so why ?
Cheers
James[/quote]

My opinions only-
1 Pro fishers give cow cockies a run for their money as world champ whingers.
2 Same increasing costs that we all face - increasing fuel & labour costs.
3 Drop in catches.
4 I dont know anyone - butcher baker or air frame fitter who thinks they are not underpaid & underworked. I know I am.
5. Its Danny Buderus' fault.

[elprez]

Yes in this reply I mention pro's that I know, but they have operations nowhere near the straits and closures I mention for example may be the scollop fishery off Gladstone. You blokes should concentrate on whats written not what you want to reading into it. Hear are a couple of sentences from my submission to gov. on straits becoming a marine park.

'Analysing the chart and graphs of appendix 3 (where I could find no reference for the representation of waved lines used in the bar charts) I noted that area V 34 which covers a large % of The Great Sandy Straits only contributes approximately 3.0% toward the economic value of fisheries, being approx. 3.5% of the commercial tonnage and employing only 5.5% of the total number of boats that work within the proposed GSMP-NS. These figures show area V34 to be the most insignificant contributing area to the economy of the fisheries within the proposed park which should also indicate it to be the most appropriate to apply the provision for fishing activities within a Conservation Park Zone, area V33 following closely behind being the second least significant contributor to the fishery.'
'Areas V33 and V34 could be an area where “maximum effect for minimum expense” in a buy back/phase out operation of commercial fishing licenses would be the best option.'

These few lines I believe are an example of bottom line reporting, you should all be aware of these principles yet use the shoot from the hip use no fact approach which is often displayed here. No-one listens to unsubstanciated stories otherwise youd believe those old blokes who used to catch those sugar bags full, back then when the wind blew harder, the hills were steeper, the dust was dryer !!!
James wasnt that you in the picture with a poor old shovel nose under one arm and a dog under the other, which one were you going to throw back.

[Big_unit]

Yes in this reply I mention pro's that I know, but they have operations nowhere near the straits and closures I mention for example may be the scollop fishery off Gladstone. You blokes should concentrate on whats written not what you want to reading into it. Hear are a couple of sentences from my submission to gov. on straits becoming a marine park.

'Analysing the chart and graphs of appendix 3 (where I could find no reference for the representation of waved lines used in the bar charts) I noted that area V 34 which covers a large % of The Great Sandy Straits only contributes approximately 3.0% toward the economic value of fisheries, being approx. 3.5% of the commercial tonnage and employing only 5.5% of the total number of boats that work within the proposed GSMP-NS. These figures show area V34 to be the most insignificant contributing area to the economy of the fisheries within the proposed park which should also indicate it to be the most appropriate to apply the provision for fishing activities within a Conservation Park Zone, area V33 following closely behind being the second least significant contributor to the fishery.'
'Areas V33 and V34 could be an area where “maximum effect for minimum expense” in a buy back/phase out operation of commercial fishing licenses would be the best option.'

These few lines I believe are an example of bottom line reporting, you should all be aware of these principles yet use the shoot from the hip use no fact approach which is often displayed here. No-one listens to unsubstanciated stories otherwise youd believe those old blokes who used to catch those sugar bags full, back then when the wind blew harder, the hills were steeper, the dust was dryer !!!
James wasnt that you in the picture with a poor old shovel nose under one arm and a dog under the other, which one were you going to throw back.

Your claiming that I am shooting from the hip with no facts, yet you claim to that you dont know any pro's in the GSS yet your full of facts about the GSS commercial fishery.

Make your mind up.

In one breath you say if I want bans then lead by example and stop fishing in the next breath your own submission says buy out / phase out would be the best option.

Let me guess you thought of it first.

So if by your ideals Im not qualified to give my view and ideas about the rec GSS fishery then what qualifies you ?

What offends you so much about my view that you need to start throwing insults at me over the net ?

Why are old guys stories about the way things were so unbelievable in your opinion ?

Cheers
James

[LostNearBribie]

Wow, that is a lot of interesting reading fellas.

I'm heading up to Tin Can Bay for the weekend.
I'm looking forward to it more than ever now!

Might even take a rod and see if I can find a place hiding some fish.

Keep it up, it makes great reading.
But try and keep the agro down.

I read a quote on another forum once, it's very Politically Incorrect,
so sorry if it offends anyone but it has always stayed with me....

"Arguing on the internet, is like the Special Olympics.
Even if you win, you're stil a sp....."

You get the idea.

Cheers.
Hope there is a couple of flatties waiting for me on the weekend.
I will put them back though.

[Wear the fox hat]

Elprez,
There's only one thing wrong with your submission. It was totally ignored along with the thousands of others that were submitted (mine included). With all of the objection etc. that happened, Sunfish were able to get a couple of changes made north of River Heads, but River Heads south remained virtually unchanged from the initial government proposal. It basically amounted to not enough CONTINUED pressure from the public in the effort to give the government bad publicity.

WTFH

[Lovey80]

All the arguing on the net will solve nothing. The passion that the few here are displaying im sure replicaties through out the rec fishing community. At the end of the day i just wish we could be heard by those that can make the decisions instead of ignoring the opinions. I would totally support a Pro buyout as long as the pro's were also happy with it. Taking revenue from fishing licences would provide an excellent means of doing this! I'm sure if there was a study done on fish stocks now then in 10 years if all the Pro's were gone that no amount of rec fishing pressure would stop a significant increase in the sustainablility of the GSS fishery.

Im Allan Jones and thats my opinion lol!!!

Cheers Chris

[elprez]

WTFH, you are absolutely right. These figures of course are those released by the fisheries for the process of change in the straits and for anyone who actualy read the report they will know that they also stated
"Designated area 8 to provide for existing licensed commercial fishing operators to continue as a non-conforming use in the Great Sandy Strait conservation park". and on further to include to "maintain and improve commercial fishing in the area" so the Gov was totally transparent in their intentions and I did realise that my submission would not be read, not even acknowledged but I felt I had to read all reports and use their data to form a balanced argument to the rec. fishers advantage.
It was probably thrown out with all the copied ,e-mail petitions etc that are ignored.
Some people from political parties did contact me however to gain data and rational from my submission before submitting their own.

[elprez]

LNB, hopeyou have a good trip, gov. put out brochures with new regs, cant remember wether I got one from here the sunny coast or up that way monkland store.