3rd February Sunday Mail - Bag limit proposal

[Haji-Baba]

Yes Pinhead. I have read the proposals re: "new rules" and I will submit my suggestions at some later date.

I was personally involved in the re-vamp of the freshwater "rules" a few years ago and I would like to think my contribution may have helped.

And yes i have fish in my freezer now and given resasonable health will always have fish in my freezer.

My objections and suggestions relate directly to the "freezer brigade" who seem to think that they can and do keep hundreds of whiting, bream, flathead, grunter,
salmon, and yes dozens of yellowbelly from our inland streams.

I am talking from experience and will continue to object whenever i see or observe what I consider to be greed displayed by some people.

I have asked the question before, what is meant by "Bag Limit"?
Is that per person day?

What is meant by "In Possesion Limit"?

Is there a time factor applied?

If the "rules" are changed will they be applied?

Have Fun Haji-Baba

[Just_chips]

I'm all for all the proposed changes to size and bag limits listed in the DPI brochure but I was a little shocked to see Mulloway (jew) pop up from a minimum of 45cm up to a proposed minimum of 75cm.

I know we learn something everyday but how did the boffins have the science on mulloway so wrong, for so long?

Cheers Kev

[mattooty]

Just chips, you'll find that the smaller size mullaway are not breeders. They have been proven to breed at approximately 55-60cm MINIMUM! That legal size was primarily aimed at commercial fishers who found them in large numbers relatively easy! The next goal for the mullaway fishers is reducing the ring netters. Instead of the gills being caught up, the large mullaway get their jaws caught in the nets much easier than any other fish of a similar size.

[levinge]

Haji correct me if I am wrong but

Bag Limit is allowable take per person

In possession does not matter if your going for 1 day or 7 in possession is the max you are allowed to have in your possession, and DPI can search you on the water, at the Ramp or pull you over on the highway to have a check. This is where "in possession really gets a few fishos"

Change depends on what they set up for the Bag, whether it is total bag or possession.

Personally hate the in possession rule, especially if your on a weekend away comp and the primary fish is Macks. If the bag drops to 10, its going to be a short comp for some...

[Haji-Baba]

Yes levinge, heard a story where fishing inspectors were checking fridges in vans up in the Northern Territory.

I thought that was a bit rude at first but having been around a while I can see where they are coming from.

Met a bloke at Winton a few years ago loaded up with fridges full of Barra Fillets.
A few feeds ok. but this bloke had dozens of fish.

The Possesion / Bag limits wordings are not consistant thus my request for more info.

Shall speak to the right people soon.

Have Fun Haji-Baba

[DICER]

With Mulloway South Australia has had the 75 cm limit for many many years, except for the Coorong areas (45cm). I think the raising the limit here is the correct thing to do. The pressure on these fish is rather high.

[zak job lo]

levinge, i hope you read all of that.

fish for the future

cheers
zak job lo

[trueblue]

I'm all for all the proposed changes to size and bag limits listed in the DPI brochure but I was a little shocked to see Mulloway (jew) pop up from a minimum of 45cm up to a proposed minimum of 75cm.

I know we learn something everyday but how did the boffins have the science on mulloway so wrong, for so long?

Cheers Kev

A small jewie is called a soapie for a reason, they taste like sh!t when small, so 75 cm should be just about right for eating...

Mind you, I have only caught 1 and that one was 1.2 m long so I might be a little biased...

[trueblue]

I don't like the Mack proposals, and am really pissed about the cobia being dropped from 10 down to 2.

I agree that 10 cobia was an excessive bag limit, but a reduction to 5 yould have been ample.

Cheers

Mick

[budge]

In respect to what many people may feel are drastic reductions in the bag limits of pelagic fish, I would surmise that these reductions are calculated upon an estimated population of fish combined with their breeding capacity and popularity as a sport fish. Yes they may seem drastic and yes it doesn't sit well with a lot of guys who may spend in the hundreds of dollars to go out on a big offshore bash but due to their popularity as a sport fish not to mention certain netting procedures, etc. i think that we would all agree that their populations are not as strong as they once were hence the large reduction in bag limit.

I know it gets on the nerves when you are out there and it may be your once in a blue moon trip where you would like to catch what you can, though, i would like to think we have made a generational shift in terms of education and realize that like everything in life once the glass is empty it is empty. We all love fishing and we all love a feed of fish, bragging rights to mates, whatever floats your boat but we as a race should have learnt by now that in life we must maximize our assets to make our wealth work for us.

I like to think of it like the analogy of the QLD water crisis. We complain now that the government for so many years has not introduced levels of infrastructure that will uphold our present needs. Although 20 years ago when times were peachy if the government was to invest multiples of millions of dollars in water infrastructure, I am sure that the consensus of the general public who generally is not highly informed in the intrinsics of all facets of life would be to argue the need for such a unnecessary investment at that time. Therefore to stay in government parties will not act, as when there is a real problem they will be paid and well long gone out of the firing line.

Here we have a body who has the foresight and courage to put out this policy to ensure the longevity of fish stocks. Yet we still complain that I can not catch as many fish as i used to be able to when i was young. Is this because they are wrong about the present and future nature of stocks, or are we unwilling to open our eyes to the foresight of others?

[levinge]

Budge I do agree with the majority of your comments...

Back in 2002 we used to get a decent haul of Macks, Around 15 to 20 over a weekends fishing, that all changed when the commercial guys decided to net down in southern QLD waters and ever since it has been extremely hard to get a decent amount of macks in the boat. However, like the majority of posts, I believe that dropping the limit on macks from 30 to 10 may be a little extreme.

Unfortunately no matter how much we protest the bag limits, they will become law and I only hope that it has the desired affect, but again it all comes down to how much damage the commercial guys do to the numbers.

Responsible Recreational Fisho's only portion a small amount of the take when it comes to sustainability of various species, the big damage is done by the commercial operators. In that I am all for the Green Zones in Moreton Bay area, might bring some areas back from the brink..

Green Zones have worked up here in NQ and I can't wait unitl they start to release a few of them in a couple of years (If they ever do). I dare say the fishing will be exceptional.

[Haji-Baba]

Spot on Levinge and Budge.

For my money I totally agree and would only
comment that the new proposed regs. will only improve the "take".

The Pros. are also going to be re-arranged and this can only help re-stocking fish numbers.

The numbers of Pros. will decrease as licences expire and the efficient people will then turn to guiding and the charter business.

We should not allow all the knowledge these people have to be lost.

As the quantity of wild caught harvest decreases aquaculture will kick in even more so and supplies will remain the same for those who do not fish.

I am not suggesting more imports.

The Northern Territory showed us the way back in the 70's when they bought up heaps of licences and turned the fishing industry into a tourism priority.

What is a good Barra worth to a pro. $20 or so?

Not much profit in that.

Turn that into a tourist caught fish and the worth to the community will be $2000 or more Per. fish.

Anyway 10 or 20 Macks is still too much fish for one family when you add in all the other species that are caught over a period of time.

How long do we keep fish in a freezer, too long in some cases and then it becomes dog or cat food.

Lets all get behind the proposals, study them objectively and then if we have a considered opinion do something about it.

I am still studying my R.I.S. document and have just recieved a few more booklets from the D.P.I Fisheries. Some Very good reading there.

As i said before in previous posts when i have a few more facts i will present my suggestions.

By the way "Bag Limit" and "In possession Limit" are the same.

Quote from "The Summary of Proposed Management Changes"

ie. "Bag Limits" as described in this document are "In Possession Limits".

They are not daily limits.

My question is: Why continue with both terms?

The more you read the more you discover.

Have Fun Haji-Baba

[Dapper Dan]

Initially i didn't like the idea, but realistically it would be better for fish stocks. More fish in the future sounds good. If we also act on this and play the appeasement game with the greenies, then perhaps they might lay back on all of their other crazy plans.

[Scott nthQld]

Like I said before, some of the new regs seem a bit extreme at first glance, and there are some that I think aren't extreme enough and bags still need to be lowered or sizes increased IMO.

It was sadi previously that we don't have all the information, and it is the DPI&F's job to maintain the fishery, whether it be increase limits due to over population or decreasing them because of abnormal population decline. The DPI (unlike the EPA) are only looking out for the fisheries best interest, I'm not old enough to remember, but my father and grandpartens have said since the introduction of the current limits was introduced, stocks have increased, and people are catching more than they were before the regs were put into place. I really think this will be for the best, not only for the fish, but for ourselves and our future generations, in knowing the DPI is responsible enough to put into action new regs (that aren't unreasonable) that will help the fishery not only maintain current levels, but increase, meaning there's better fishing to come.