Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by STUIE63
If there is nothing wrong why the 6 week no take starting February? the ones that make the rules believe there is a problem even if it is cooked figures to make it sound worse that it really is.
why fix something that's not broken?
IF IT CAN'T EAT A WHOLE PILLY I DON'T WANT IT
If there is nothing wrong why the 6 week no take starting February? the ones that make the rules believe there is a problem even if it is cooked figures to make it sound worse that it really is.
the ones that make the rules listened to some shonky computer models and have to appease their green masters so they fed some very suspect data into an even more suspect computer model and then just barely got the result they wanted and are trying to force thi bull$hit down peoples throats . and threads like this just seem to justify it . so I say again why fix something that is not broken
Stuie
IF IT CAN'T EAT A WHOLE PILLY I DON'T WANT IT
i think commercially speaking, fish farming is the way to go. in saying that there can be no better fish farm on earth than the great barrier reef and i am sure it can be fished sustainably forever. i believe that every estuary, offshore reef or river system has a sustainable 'take' limit. of course it's different for each area and the key would be research and monitoring which wouldn't happen because of the costs involved. the other problem would be trusting the commercial sector to accurately report their catch and take efforts in the interests of long term sustainability and not short term money grabbing. bag limits should be reduced for many species that are slow growing and long lived, mangrove jack and golden snapper(fingermark) are 2 that come to mind and i think the mud crab limit is too much as well. overfishing is a worldwide problem and as the worlds oceans become more and more depleted in the coming years the potential for more illegal fishing vessels in our waters is going to increase. fish farming should be the way of the future for the entire world and leave the wild stocks for closely controlled and monitored areas or rec fishers.....fishing responsibly and for the future
Ok i agree whit you on the way they fudged the figures but they are doing it for some reason, if the rec fishos just sit back and say she will be right guess what more funky figures and more restrictions. I would love to know how are they going to know if you target snapper as this should be avoided in there no take period???
Having read all 6 pages of ideas thus far It is very clear that it is the growing number of humans that is the problem having more and more demands on the fish stock (beit holding, growing, declining or whatever) and other world resources.
So we need to control the human population growth to make THAT sustainable vis a vis the worlds food resources.
Perhaps a new thread could discuss birth control, nuking govt headquarters, ministries and quasi govt depts (police, firies, ambos etc) and also we should reduce our hospitals and care systems and force euthanasia. What age should we start at 70,60,45? That should reduce the population for a while and if we recreational fishos take up hunting as well we may succeed in reducing the human population to sustainable numbers (at least for a while till the population explodes again).
Bring back Mad Max - all is forgiven LOL.
Merry Xmas.
Plato
Trouble is we would only want a selective cull of humans and we may even fit in our own cull criterieas and all go to ground, dont you think?? LOL
Keep up the christmas cheer Plato!
Hey Odes;
At 58 years young I fit into two of the euthanasia categories already!
Culling of humans has always been governments prerogative based on how many $$$ they let back into social welfare, housing and health. e.g. In NZ if you have cancer the 'allowance' is around $700 - once you've used that its over!
Remember this when you next vote!
Oh yes, the greenies fit ALL euthanasia categories.
Cheers
Plato
So how will we know when a fishery is sustainable or not ?
How do we know if our fishing practices are sustainable or not ?
....... besides when we cant catch a fish ?
Clearly too many hereabouts do not trust the departments that carry out these studies & commission the scientific research........Even though this is non political - sadly though people want to politicise it ! -
Keep in mind .. This same research will be passed on to the next government & the same recommendations will be made. - This has nothing to do with LABOUR / GREENS ......... just cast your mind back with regard to the GBR marine zones which was instigated by a Federal Howard Liberal government
I'm pretty sure if there was not a problem (ie: Snapper) - no recommendations would be made and no action would be taken.
Chris
Give a man a fish & he will eat for a day !
Teach him how to fish
& he will sit in a boat - & drink beer all day!
TEAM MOJIKO
Plato is onto it. Growing number of humans is obviously the main source of environmental problems. Birth control is important, but the problem with that is the estrogen in the pill (and even just having a large number of females in a population) are persistent in pee and find their way into the environment via sewage wastewater, feminising fish and other marine animals, also causing immunosuppression, resulting in lack of recruitment and even local extinctions. All scientifically validated in various parts of the world once a certain human population density is reached. To put it bluntly, family planning and rubber or the snip is the way to go for population control with minimal impact on aquatic organisms (few seem to advocate abstinence !), and reverse osmosis of wastewater is the best deal for the environment to remove most of the estrogens - even if the dams are full, use it anyway and dump it in the bay and not the water supply. The marine environment will thank you for it with increased productivity.
re: restocking of marine areas, you can certainly breed millions of fingerlings, but if you release them over several years the risks to the wild stocks include loss of genetic diversity and introduction of disease. These are real risks which can degrade what is left of the natural populations you are trying to protect/enhance. I believe that is a "catch 22" situation. Enhancement programs that involve restocking are thus last resort bandaids - usually required to get around irreversible problems that stem from loss of nursery habitat or other man made issues that interrupt the natural recruitment cycle (e.g. dams and weirs). But if you can reverse the original problem, that must be the main priority as natural recruitment is the best quality recruitment . In the US they are knocking down some of their hydro dams because everything else they have tried re: restocking has not helped their salmon come back.
re: aquaculture, you still have to feed the cultured fish and they produce nutrient wastes. Seacage culture is a form of nutrient/pathogen pollution for wild fish stocks. landbased recirculation systems with the right species (e.g. barra, murray cod) that can utilise a low % fishmeal diet are the sustainable way forward - there are significant financial/business risks for recirc. aquaculture pioneers but some good operators are making it work.
euthanasia - well, isn't the only political party that supports that at the moment the greens ?....
re: snapper, they are being fished hard due to GPS and sounders and soft plastic technology and we have seen large reductions in nursery habitat quality and area from historical baselines. water quality declines will not help with larval survival either. You do the math, but I can't see any miracles happening with this species.
Management of all these factors will be required for long term sustainability of our fisheries and environmental quality in general. Governments are aware of these things, but the $ is king and the large scale of the various problems that arise with increasing human population is why I believe most governments nowadays are hung parliaments (or near to it) - no one has the "right" answers or is game to make hard decisions.
As I understand it the 'problem' with Snapper surfaced when some lazy Gold Coast Charter operators found out they couldn't flog the same marks everyday and make a living. So they want it to themselves by restricting Rec Anglers. If there was a reason for real alarm there would be no 'consultation' they would implement what they wanted. This RRFF review will guarantee one thing only Recs will get hammered and charter will benefit.
The sunny coast charter operators seem to be able to put guys onto fish fairly regularly time for the Gold Coast guys to clean up their acts plain and simple.
Democracy: Simply a system that allows the 51% to steal from the other 49%.
The best solution is to push all prawn trawlers outside 3nm.
If you went on numbers of fish killed and not their actual weight the by catch of juvenile 3-4 inch snapper in trawl nets would by far out number all snapper caught by other commercial fishers,charter operators and rec fishermen combined.
Boats working inshore grounds and bays can easily kill 2-3 boxes of 3 inch snapper every night that they work at certain times of the year and if you look at how many inshore trawlers are working along the NSW/Qld coastline that amounts to millions of baby snapper killed every year.
These numbers apply to baby jews as well caught in trawl nets.
NSW fisheries did a trawl trash survey in the Clarence River and the numbers of baby Jews counted was astounding but I cannot remember if any surveys were done on snapper in trawl nets but i guess there will be surveys on file somewhere.
I reckon it would be a sure bet that if these boats were made to work outside 3nm within 5 years there would be a massive abundance of snapper,jews,flathead and many other species.
spot on aussie123 the type of fishing that attracts so much unwanted bye catch has to stop the government should take there licenses and give them a patch of dirt and make them farm prawns. As apposed to rape rape rape oh look no fish winge winge winge.
It may surprise you but there aren't many snapper caught by trawlers these days. Once a snapper reaches about 20cm, it can easily out-swim a trawl net. A few are caught in Moreton Bay but trawl effort in Moreton Bay has decreased by about 60% in the last 20 years.
Nothing surprises me about what is caught in prawn trawl and fish trawl gear.
I also don't mean to imply that trawlers should be closed down from operating either because if they worked the appropriate areas the by-catch can be minimal
but indiscriminate trawling of nursery grounds causes massive damage to fish stocks.
The introduction of net and engine restrictions,TEDS and BRD's and many other industry adjustments has helped create a reasonable sustainable fishing industry but once the boats move inshore all that is thrown out the window.
Your right in saying not many adult fish are caught in prawn nets but juvenile fish are still caught by the box fulls.
Posting Permissions
