keeping your bag limits?

[murrayscod]

I have to say right up front that I get annoyed when I read comments which seek to imbue guilt feelings on someone who is fishing within the law.


For the people who want to encourage people to take less than the bag limits, do you personally also:-

1. limit your driving to the absolute minimum so as to limit the effect that your inefficient gas guzzling, poisonous gas exhaling vehicle has on the environment and the world's oil resources, or do you drive as much as you like, consistent with the laws of the land?

2. Do you regularly go around your house turning off every unused light and appliance and refuse to get airconditioning because of the effects that such excessive energy use has on global warming and the general well-being of the future generations? Or do you use whatever you want to, consistent with the laws of the land.

3. When you drive, even though the speed limit may be 60 KPH, do you drive at 20 KPH, knowing that by driving slower, you will use less fuel and burn less tyre rubber, thus preserving energy and natural resources for future generations and helping to reduce global warming? Or do you drive at at the speed limit or thereabouts, consistent with the laws of the land?

4. Do you always buy locally produced foods so as to reduce the number of "food miles" that your home consumes, thus reducing the impact of your family's consumption patterns on global warming and the earth's scarce oil resources? Or do you just buy whatever you want from wherever you want consistent with what the laws of the land allow you to do?

5. Do you still have the old efficient CRT TVs in your house and shun the higher energy consuming LCD or plasma TVs and by so doing are thus doing your part towards conserving the earth's limited finite resources? Or does you home have at least one LCD or Plasma TV because you can because that is what the laws of the land allow you to do?

6. Have you always refused to buy bottled water because of the waste of the earth's resources and pollution of the seas that plastic bottled water causes? Or have you bought whatever products you want to and were encouraged to by advertising and peer pressure and because that is what the law of the land allows you to do?

7. Have you ever bought any new clothes simply to follow fashion even though your old clothes were perfectly serviceable and by continuing to wear the old ones, you would not be contributing to unnecessary consumption and squandering of the earth's scarce resources? Or have you bought whatever you like at any time that you like because that is what the law of the land allows you to do?


Gee, I reckon that I could easily put hundreds of conservationalist guilt clarifying questions like these in this post to ask anyone who is pointing fingers at anyone else about their practices in fishing or any other human endeavour.


What I would rather do is assume that the laws of the land are set in place according to well thought out principles and that by obeying those laws, people are doing all that they need to do until such time as those laws are altered in some way.

If 50 is the limit on whiting then good luck to anyone who is lucky enough to bag 50.

The reality is that most people will not catch 50 very often so when they do, I am happy to congratulate them.


.

You have a good point, but yeah as someone else has said i'm also not a big believer in global warming etc. but in saying that i had to laugh at your points because i would do most of those things. You're starting to make me feel like a greeny. Maybe i am. The guys at work reckon im in the dark ages.

1. i hardly drive anywhere, my wife ups me when i say im not driving 6kms to pick something up. i try to ride to work when i can.

2. Most nights you would think noone was home because i have no lights on. I had a climate smart check (id recommend it!!) got a power usage meter and so i switch of everything that doesnt need to be on. I have not got air conditioning waste of money, open some windows and get some blankets. I had a home sustainability check, put in a tank, have short showers, put on a solar hot water and solar power (i recommend this too), replaced inefficient fridges and oven, sent back more power to the grid than i used by 3 times, ie. credit power bill

3. probably fall on this one. but in saying that i didnt think at lower speeds the benefit would be that high. at 100km zone i try to travel at 90. more to save fuel though. I tried to buy efficient cars.

4. I grow a lot of my own food vegies etc, i purchase honey from a local man, and buy most of my meat off local farmers.

5. and yes i do still have an old 32cm tv with snow storms going thru it compared to plasma or lcd. I don't even have a digital set top box even my grandmother does. for a young guy i cop it all the time when the mates ask where the plasma or xbox etc is.

6. I definitely don't buy bottled water, honestly can't see the point in it. last time i checked water is water and it comes out of the tap for free. And it's nearly more exxy then beer.

7. Believe me i don't keep up with fashion, my clothes go thru a good stage, a work stage then a home stage until they start tearing, even then unless the wife spots it i'll still wear them.

But yes this is another topic and as i said it's only my opinion. I have been guilty of keeping more fish than i needed in the past. And I'm probably just jealous that i have never caught anywhere near that amount of whiting in my life.

I think you are on the ball if you can.

Luke

[ric]

i am 1 of those who bagged out...thursday gave my sis 20 oldman 12 for a feed kept the rest for myself had 2 feed out of those fish myself wife and son so would be lucky to have 30 fish out of my bag in the freezer by the way this was my 1st ting trip in 6 months...then sunday went out got bag again 150 give sis 50 oldman and oldlady kept there bag of 100,sis family had 25 tings for dinner that nite and the oldman man had 15 doesn't take long to eat 100 whiting...prob wont go ting fishing for another month or so....
cheers rosco

Rosco, you don't need to justify where the fish went to anyone. Enjoy catching them while we still can!!

. Maybe not but i do pop the clutch in down hills

Thats just dangerous.


Ric

[murrayscod]

I like Charleville's line of questioning, but I hate seeing people relate human CO2 emission to global warming. There's just no proof. But that's for another topic....

Personally when I was a kid 30 years ago, we'd catch em by the hessian bag full up at Hervey Bay. It's got to be better than it was.

I'd agree, i think things have to be way better now. I think the reason i'm thinking down this way is, why even in the last say 15 years there seems to be less fish around in estuaries? i know the bag and size limits are getting tighter but perhaps they are still way off the mark. or maybe it's still damaged from 20 years ago when the rules were not as tight.

I am a research scientist myself and i know that it takes time (years) to sucessfully run a research project, perhaps by the time they realise what state the fishery is in the damage has already been done?

Luke

[murrayscod]

Lol i can put a whole different twist on charlevilles arguement:

1. Limit my driving so i dont spend so much on fuel so i have more cash left to spend on tackle, boat gear etc

2. Turn off every light and appliance because my missus whinges about it and dont get air con because i would rather spend my money on tackle, boat gear etc

3. Maybe not but i do pop the clutch in down hills

4. Hmmm maybe should think about that one!

5. Have an old crt tv because it works and would rather spend my money on tackle, boat gear etc

6. Water??? is that a liquid like beer?

7. Dont know what new clothes are, too busy buying tackle, boat gear etc

And all this buying tackle and boat gear still dont get me more than 1 or 2 tings!!!

I can fullly understand that! nice work i agree

[murrayscod]

The second line of your post in important. "YOU HAVE A PROBLEM " with people taking there bag of whiting. I think the problem is more so that you are commenting on a fishery you have no experience of and do not understand. These are diver whiting and are generally 20 - 25 cm's, a good one 28-30. Before the bag linit was introduced, catches of 150-250 were not uncommon. The bag limit of 50 is reasonable and time will show I'm sure, sustainable.
I personally wouldn't eat fresh water fish, I reckon they taste like crap, but tasty little wintery's are top chewing so if I can get 50, I will. ( Does not happen often though!!)

Cheers......Terry.......

Hi Terry,

thanks for the response

I have admitted that i don't know a lot about this area or the fishery in question. And really this topic was not just aimed at the whiting more aimed at aiming to catch the limit in a trip.

I appreciate the stats on the fish, would still like someone to say why they seem to be in bigger numbers seasonally??

It's a good thing that many do not eat fresh water fish because it means more are released and when i want a feed i can get one.

And when all i have close to fish for is freshwater fish i have no choice.

Seriously its in the way its cooked filleted and light flour with garlic powder cooked fresh its a long way from any rubbish that supermarkets sell. yuk.

Yellowbelly is tops!

Cheers luke

[FNQCairns]

Someone mentioned climate smart....on the web site check out this unit from upside down says it all really

http://www.climatesmarthome.com/index.html

[murrayscod]

Someone mentioned climate smart....on the web site check out this unit from upside down says it all really

http://www.climatesmarthome.com/index.html

That's a good idea. They are a really good unit to have and the service is worth the $50 with light globes etc thrown in.

[liltuffy]

MC, are you sure you are not a green tinged unwashed spy registered on this forum to undermine and gather intelligence on real fisherfolk and our lifestyle for the benefit of others ???

No offence mate but whilst we are on opinions I am always wary of members who have the standard Ausfish avatar - no personification to the comments they put in threads.

What does trouble me the most is the increasing level of accusations and or comments (however subtle and apparently benign) they seem to be keep appearing here and elsewhere against mum and dad law abiding citizens.

Each has their opinion and is entitled to express it - you and I included.

I bear no malice to you at all and the trouble with forums like this is the lack of emotion and detail that can be interpreted from a conversation, I do however like Charleville take exception to your insinuations.

[PinHead]

I'd agree, i think things have to be way better now. I think the reason i'm thinking down this way is, why even in the last say 15 years there seems to be less fish around in estuaries? i know the bag and size limits are getting tighter but perhaps they are still way off the mark. or maybe it's still damaged from 20 years ago when the rules were not as tight.

I am a research scientist myself and i know that it takes time (years) to sucessfully run a research project, perhaps by the time they realise what state the fishery is in the damage has already been done?

Luke

your answer there lies in the rivers reports..have a look at the quality of the rivers running into the estuaries.

[Lucky_Phill]

1. There seems to be less fish around than 15 years ago !


A. Well 15 years ago there were not bag, size and possession limits like that are in place today. So fishing reports from then to now are hugely different. Having said that, this does not mean numbers of fish stocks or numbers caught are down. Example, 3 anglers at spot X 15 years ago caught an average 50 fish each in a trip. Today they only get 5, but the numbers of anglers has increased to 30 , so still same numbers of fish caught but report varies. And in some cases with limits set at 5, there may be 20 times the number of anglers fishing the same grounds and if that is the case ( and I could make one for it ), then fish stocks ( numbers, bio-mass whatever you want to call it ), is sustainable and could be increasing. Maybe not size of fish, I am talking numbers.

2. All this talk about bag limits and size limits and no one mentioned the most important factor…. “ in possession “. This is crucial in management of the fishery and a policing tool to be used to counter repeat offenders and serial shamatuers.



3. No one should be questioning anyones ability or right to catch and keep an amount of fish within the bounds of the laws that govern them. If questions are to be raised, they must be raised in the appropriate forum and that is with DPI&F. From a response you will receive factual and prompt replies in relation to any enquiries regarding the laws.

4. There seems ???

This statement bothered me as it is very ambiguous . What does it mean ? Let’s see !!

1…. I don’t physically see the numbers of fish I did 15 years ago !


2…. I don’t hear peoples stories today of the same numbers of fish they caught 15 years ago !


3…. I don’t read reports of the same numbers of fish being caught as there was 15 years ago !


4…. I don’t catch as many fish as I did 15 years ago !


5…. My mates are not catching as many fish as they did 15 years ago !


6… The fish co-ops do not seem to have as many fish as 15 years ago !

Hands up those of us that actually catch a bag limit ? There are hundreds and hundreds of species of fish in Queensland waters with the vast majority covered by size, bag, no take and possession limits. Rarely is a bag limit attained and if it is, it is because that species is a robust one which more than likely did not need a bag limit imposed.

I would like to think Fisheries managers impose bag and size limits for scientific and sound management reasons, other than to appease an apparent and sometimes misguided idea from a glasshouse living, limited life experienced, just out of uni, pimple faced earth child who fell into a position of responsibility by sheer luck or family ties. No offence intended to anyone with that analogy, but it appears to be a reality rather than a rumour.

I believe everyone should be aware of the regulations and laws that govern our lifestyle activities, but not know them off by heart, there are way too many variants and changes happening at an almost daily interval.

LP>
.
.
.
.

[HeadBanger]

While I've never even come close to hitting a bag limit on any species of fish, I find it hard to think about the difference between legally keeping 50 fish and illegally keeping 51. Of course I would never break the law and keep more than my bag limit though (I doubt I'll ever even get close hahah.)

Personally, I follow all the state regulations, as well as meeting my own personal requirements. I don't take sand whiting under 26cm, no flathead over 60cm (even though I release most of them anyway) and a few other things like this. Does anyone else do that?

Cheers,
Kaidon

[mitchdemeanor]

Dangerous putting in the clutch? not really seeing as the car is still in gear just gotta bring it back up, and thats what brakes are for. An auto has no benefits of engine braking and will continue to push while under braking so i think Newtons theory is going to do little harm to the stopping power of my manual. Plus not being a queenslander or Aussie for that matter i give the courtesy of allowing the car in front of me some breathing space

[webby]

Here we go again, this subject has been discussed a dozen times on this site, and most times its ended up in a argument.
There a rules and regs in place, its up to the individual as to what he wants to keep, and until they change any of these rules let it be.

[Seahorse]

sounds like a greenie.
i dont believe that someone has said that a bag limit of 50 whiting is to high.
2 feeds.
what a joke.
stay in the dams.
greg, rosco. you coulnt say things any better.
I will be out there sat getting another 50

cheers
greg

[rosco1974]

have been pulled up by a mod for what i said earlier as being over my bag limit so will put it in stupid terms for everyone

thursday... went with son caught 100 my bag give sis a few 4 dinner and same to olds froze 30 fish worth of fillets

sunday.... went fishing me ,my oldman and my oldlady so 3 fishing son stayed at home with his 30 fish in the freezer.got bag of 150 3 people fishing 50 each,give sis 50 olds kept 100 no 1 over ther limits and never where ...please befor u ask the questions read my fishing posts properly....is that better ...
cheers rosco