Jew allocation part 2

[Big Deez]

[quote=Big Deez;1205139]You know what they say about opinions - they're like a**eholes, everyone's got one!

You got that right!

You'll have to excuse this poor Queenslander. When I hear a bloke living right next to two recreational fishing havens whinging about the capture of a few jewies by a net crew I don't tend to have too much sympathy, sorry.

If you choose to live in Qld, thats your concern. If you would like rec fishing havens, go out and lobby for them. I would love to have them and a rec fishing licence. However, given the irrational opposition to them in Qld they are a long way off unfortunately.
To my knowledge, gained purely from reading the newspaper articles, Mr. Lockwood is describing specific incidents that occured in the Taree area.
So, 3.27 tonnes in 2 days equates to a 'few jewies' in your terms? Yes that is a few jewies in my terms. At ten kilos a piece thats 327 individuals. As a proportion of the total number this is a drop in the ocean.
No 'whinging' in my post, just my opinion. Your sympathy is neither solicited nor required. Perhaps I was wrong to assume you were whinging.

Drive up to north arm and catch a few of those big bream in the snags or have a crack at those nice big lizards around the green knob - and while you're doing this, be thankful you have the rec only rivers at your doorstep and move on!

What has this got to do with the OP? And who the %^&* do you think you are to tell me to be thankful? And why exactly do you want me to 'move on'? I'm no-one, mate. However, you should be thankful. Two beautiful rivers, net-free? Come on, you should be thankful.

Is there any evidence that the capture of jewies by beach crews is not sustainable? Why do you think that it isn't sustainable? Aren't they being sold at the fish markets after which they are bought by people wanting a feed? What's wrong with that? Jewies certainly aren't endangered in any way are they?

Perhaps you should consider directing your questions to Mr. Lockwood, via 'Letters to the Editor' at The Manly Daily, instead of choosing to launch into a personal attack on Ausfish. This isn't a personal attack. You are obviously passionate about this debate. I recognise its hard to be rational when you have such passion but it may be a good idea and take a step back and think that net crews aren't responsible for any perceived reduction in the numbers of mulloway.

Your attitude toward pro fishers is why the green movement will continue to steam roll both rec's and pro's in the coming years. That's my opinion Nigel.

Really? I'd genuinely love to read how you reach that conclusion, given that I dont vote Green or Labor! I'd suggest your own choice to play the man rather than the issue wouldn't be doing the Pro sector any favours.......... My point here was that as a divided user-group (rec v pro) we are much easier target than if the two stakeholders are united. Playing the man??? I'm not a profisher if thats what you're trying to say. I'm a rec fisher and have been since I caught my first fish, a whiting, in the Bellinger 35 years ago.

I love North Beach by the way!

Possibly if you actually lived at North Beach, and had experienced the issue first-hand, you might have a different perspective. Ah, but I have experienced the issue first hand, from both sides of the argument. I am a rec fisher but have worked on beach crews and in other commercial fishinmg activities.
And for the record, I genuinely love Queensland!

Cheers and enjoy your day.

Your arguments are shot down in effect by the figures quoted by billfisher. The rec take of jewies is 4.5 times as high as those by commercial fishers. And thats all commercial fishers not just beach crews. Its about time rec fishers realised that they do contribute to a significant proportion of total catch of some species like mulloway and snapper. Anyway thats my opinion for what its worth.

[nigelr]

Thanks Big Deez, note however the date of the figures.
Cheers.

[Big Deez]

Thanks Big Deez, note however the date of the figures.
Cheers.

Duly noted Nigel. Given the buy backs and such, wouldn't the proportion of catch by pro's have decreased since that time?

[nigelr]

First time I saw travelling Qld. beach-haulers take a large haul of mulloway, as opposed to mullet, was in 2003. They have been actively pursuing mulloway on the NSW coast since then, with considerable success.
Note the timing, the 01-02 data showed a large discrepancy betwen Rec and Comm take. These fellas aren't silly, if they see an opportunity they exploit it, they'd be mad if they didn't.
And to be quite honest, as the current legislation apparrently allows the practice of taking mulloway ostensibly as by-catch, the only option for people who want things to change is to lobby for it at every opportunity.
Cheers.

[rabbi]

Geez, someone is finally paying attention. Beauty!!!!

[nigelr]

Yeah mate, we can all only hope atm that some action gets taken, but it is fantastic to see the issue is at least 'on the table'.
Cheers.

[Lovey80]

This practice is easily solved. Tax all netting by-catch at 80 or 90% and have those funds go into restocking programs. If it's not financially viable to target species that are not meant to be the target then either they'll stop targeting them or the return to the system via the funds will certainly make up for the loss in numbers that were taken in the first place. I'd rather see "By-Catch" taken to market and sold with a return to the community than have licences that must throw dead fish back into the water.

[nigelr]

What is happening here Lovey80 is that the 'by-catch' has become the 'target' species. 10 times the money on the co-op floor for mulloway compared to mullet, as you can imagine. Current laws apparently allow the practice; until they are changed the status quo will remain. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement to return dead fish to the water. The methodology is not necessarily the same for beach-hauling mullet, locally the mullet have tended to head straight out to sea for 2-300 metres rather than along the beach gutters for the last several years; they can then be taken by boats that generally work the tuna-bait fishery. Conversely, mulloway may be beach-hauled at night when the fish are generally more active.
Cheers.

[honda900]

Yehaaaaa!!!! nothing like a good phone poll to BS The Rec fisho's numbers eh..

In fine tradition our Scientists base their facts on a phone poll.


Page 4 Methods:

METHODS

The survey used remote (telephone and diary) survey methods as the primary
source of information from recreational fishers. A clustered stratified random
sample of household telephone numbers was drawn from electronic white
page directories. Researchers rang each household and conducted an
interview with respondents to obtain information on their fishing and boating

activities and demographic profile.


Regards
HOnda.

[aussipomm]

wow this really got everyone fired up fishing should be sustainable pro's and recs alike take no more than is reproduced every year and there'll be fish for ever thats how it works take more and one day there'll be none

[kc]

Not as simple as that. To a point, the harder a fishery is fished, the better the spawning recruitment because there is more available habitat. Lots of seasonal factors also in play which influence annual recruitment but the quickest way to shut down "recruitment" is stop all fishing....which is why the whole MPA thing does not work with fish which do not migrate.

Having a foot in both camps, as a large buyer of commercial seafood and a mad keen rec fisher I respect a pros right to fish and supply but also know they can be their own worst enemies. Smashing a big school of large jew, 2 days in a row, in spitting distance from a rec only area is bad PR at best and plain dumb at worst.

Same happens up here with the big barra and I have actually "trained" my main pro NOT to target big Barra...nobody will buy them anymore. We have a "closed" river but the mouth does get a fair touch up from the nets and sometimes, when the King Salmon start to run. The nets will take 3 or 4 tonnes in quick time and bugger all actually makes it into the river...and that it for the year! Other times, usually due to poor weather when the fish start to run, they make it into the river and the rec fishery fires all year...and generates seriuos income for those involved in the rec fishing supply chain.

Recs and pros will always differ...always have, always will. What is just 327 fish to a pro is maybe the fish of a lifetime for 327 individuals...it is always a jelously issue rather than about sustainable take.

Having worked around the edges of commercial fishing and fishing politics I can say with certainty that the commercial sector are scared more about the emergence of political activism within the recreational fishing sector than they are about the greens. They know that numbers (votes) and political horse trading have far more sway than anything else. It is, or will be, the commerial sector that needs to make peace with the recreational sector, not the other way round.

Up until a few years ago the commercial sector had the ear of Government. It had a position with the Department of Primary Industries, it had (and still has) paid lobbiests/industry associations and was (is) a political donor....now days, none of this matters as the "fishing vote" is becoming more important, particularly to conservative politics then the few $$ tipped in by the commercial operators.

One thing, IMO, the commercial sector needs to get its head around is it's image and PR...again, this particular effort, just like the netting of the big school of permit recently, does the commercial sector no favours at all.

KC