sustainable fishing ideas for the future

[NAGG]

all those areas have one thing in common..close in areas that have been polluted by urban run off..perhaps one should look at these first.

if there are plenty of juvenile fish in Moreton bay then that says the snapper are breeding okay..perhaps an increase in size limit could be the answer.

Moreton bay in the 70's..the place was being dredged of the coral for the cement works..all the habitat was detroyed either partially or fully.

So is there a problem if I give some fish to my in laws..if I don't give them some then they go and buy it..what is the difference ?? NONE.

This holier than thou attitude of catch and release is a joke...quite a lot of fish die from the c&r brigade also..don't think you don't kill any..you do.

I fish..I eat fish and I obey the size and bag limit laws..if you don't like it..tough.

Estaury species such as bream whiting and flathead have noit declined..same as ever. The offshore blokes say the past snapper season has been the best for many years..so what is the problem? Moreton bay perhaps...anyone take note of the healthy rivers reports every year..they aren't improving..and where do they run to? Moreton bay. Surely that tells something.

I certainly dont see myself as "holier than thou" and have nothing against people who take a feed - with a little luck I should be fanging on some nice jack , jew or thready in less than a week
I just believe in moderation ....... and with an increasing population , improvements in technology , higher boat ownership etc etc - Combined with commercial practices , habitat destruction and polution ... I have doubts about sustainability in SE Qld.
NSW is seeing a turn around ...... but they made changes

Chris

[marty666]

Marty ..... if you honestly know that the law is being broken - call the authorities .... If you turn a blind eye to it - it will continue to go on !
Chris

the thing is they were not braking the law but the take was hugh it is simple fish out of water do not breed.

[NAGG]

the thing is they were not braking the law but the take was hugh it is simple fish out of water do not breed.

Qld bag limits are also posession limits ..... So you are not allowed to have in your freezer more than the daily bag limit - Policing it would be difficult but people are caught . I have been searched at my campsite - down on the Eucumbene in NSW - They were there to enforce the trophy fish status ( 1 fish in posession over 50cm). I have heard that up North they do the occasional roadside raid

Chris

[warrigul]

piratitions, not pirations learn to spell u idiot.
hey hang on thats me duh.

[Lovey80]

Nagg you certainly portray a Holier than thou attitude. Your moral stance against taking a large haul of fish is irrelevant to the sustainability of fish stocks. For example one could go out and take home 100kg of Mahi Mahi and there would be very very little done to dent the sustainability of Mahi Mahi in QLD waters. They are one of the fastest breeding, fastest growing, great fighting and great eating fish in the ocean. If someone wants to grab a big bag of Mahi Mahi and pass on what they don't need to friends and family I have no problems with that. The Mahi will be there next year and the year after (yes they will be) so your resistance to taking more than 20kg in this example is simply a moral one not a sustainability one.

As for your other examples, please leave the other states out of this. The other states don't manage our fishery. Also you need to consider that in the 70's there were very little restrictions on Rec Anglers. The majority of rules and regulations we have now have come in the last 15 years. I don't give two hoots what happened in the 70's because the mistakes were realised and we have learnt from it. What is important now is are our current Rules, Regulations and sustainability measures doing the job.?

On some accounts I say yes on others I say no. But to bring in a religious reasoning for doing or not doing something to do with sustainability is not nessessary and counter productive.

On the Snapper sizes of the past, I agree with you. As I have stated already in this thread Snapper are a slow growing fish. The previous restrictions of 35cm and a bag of 5 will take time to show results. We have not come close to seeing the results of those changes. I personally would not mind a 40cm minimum length on Snapper. Sure for 2-3 or so years it would mean a lot of returned fish but after that the benefit of more larger fish in the fishery would be a benefit to all. There is also evidence on a genetic level that us taking all the larger fish is effecting the genetic make up on some species. Snapper is not immune. Seeing a bag of 5 with a minimum of 40cm and 2 fish over 65cm would help on all accounts.

But of course if that were to become law, you would still not be happy. Even though the Snapper fishery is better off for it a person would eventually be taking home more and more KG of fish on a good trip and that does not bode well for your conscience.

time to take the feelings out of it and think with the head.

[tropicrows]

The governement cares more about revenue raising than enforcing the law, so unless they see they can make a good dollar out of it there will never be strong enforcement.

I also believe the best way to create sustainable fish stocks is to increase the amount of habitat through creation of artificial reefs. 98% of the ocean is basically desert, with very little life, especially if you look at areas like moreton bay, acres of sand, and anywhere where there is structure life is abundant! Create more structure = more habitat = more fish that can be sustained in the biomass = better fish stocks! It's not rocket science!

Anthony

Spot on Anthony, I could not agree more......

[oldboot]

One thing we have to remember is that the fishery is a very large system....and as such responds slowly to changes.
there are big changes that have obvious immediate effects..... but thay aso have long term effects that roll on for ages.
And those small sensible measures.....they take a very long time to realy bite.

Now we hear about the seventies.
Yeh there was lots a stuff happening in the seventies, both good and bad and we are wearing the cost and benifits of those too.

There has been massive development in the catchments since the seventies.
There has been huge improvements in polution controll since the seventies

There have been very big changes in size & bag limits since the seventies.

Possibly the single biggest help to our fishery in recent times is this big fresh that has flushed the rivers out.

There was lots of stuff that came back in the brisbane river after the 74 flood that had not been seen for decades.

People are forgetting we have not had consistent heavy rains like we are having now since the 80's.

As for the bay......ya just have to look at what the enormous reclamation of the fisherman island port has done to water flows across the front of wynnum.

Look at all the habit that has been lost since the 70's
all that swamp and mangrove habitat that went under
the new airport
the new port
Raby bay and other bay canal developments

And the immense volumes of sand bank that were dredged up for reclaim....and the disruption that caused.

those that fish the back of green, mud & st helina........all that used to be acres upon acres of reef......all dredged up and made into cement.
Ya recon those nice well defined steps out the back of green are natural.

YEH we are wearing lots of effects of the years past.

remember back in the 70's there was no bag limit on crabs and you could run as many pots as you like as a rec crabber.....I know blokes in Townsville who used to go out with 20 pots.

Same with unlimited catches of taylor........visions of Frazer island crawling with the long rods and blokes with tuckerbox freezers full of taylor...and that is not so long ago.

and lots of this stuff did not change untill quite recently.

Ya have to get it all in perspective.....the last thing we need is highly publicised, vote winning knee jerk fisheries management like we are seeing with the "Snapper" issue.

We are swinging from too little too late, to tooo much that wont work.

We need to slow down a little, listen, observe, think and manage for the long term..... not for the next election.

cheers

[Ben D]

Nagg you certainly portray a Holier than thou attitude. Your moral stance against taking a large haul of fish is irrelevant to the sustainability of fish stocks. For example one could go out and take home 100kg of Mahi Mahi and there would be very very little done to dent the sustainability of Mahi Mahi in QLD waters. They are one of the fastest breeding, fastest growing, great fighting and great eating fish in the ocean. If someone wants to grab a big bag of Mahi Mahi and pass on what they don't need to friends and family I have no problems with that. The Mahi will be there next year and the year after (yes they will be) so your resistance to taking more than 20kg in this example is simply a moral one not a sustainability one

Ummm, its probably Ok if just one person goes out and takes 100 kg of Mahi mahi, but there are many tens of thousands of fishos in SE QLD alone . Say there are a conservative 5000 in QLD with boats who can get to mahi mahi, if they all did that one year, now thats 5000 x 100 kg and you have 500,000 kg of mahi mahi coming out of the fishery. Dunno about you, but I think 500 tonnes of mahi mahi coming out of the fishery along the QLD coast might dent the stock a little in the short term by the time they get down to SE QLD, despite mahi mahi being one of the fastest growing and most prolific spawners in the ocean. To suggest that sustained heavy fishing does not impact on a fish population is simply naive...

Fisheries management is a best guess process and the benefits of being more conservative with bag and size limits should mean more fish in the water (hopefully breeding). Now, whether the water and habitat quality remains high enough for those eggs and larvae to survive, that is another matter entirely. Sustainable fisheries management requires maintaining enough breeding sized fish to produce excess eggs, and keeping habitat and water quality high enough to ensure the life cycle is completed. The health of the whole food chain from plankton up relies on clean water - this is why the healthy waterways results are (unfortunately) the barometer for the health of our inshore fisheries. Because the water and habitat quality is declining, so will the productivity of the fisheries that rely on them (e.g. snapper), meaning that tighter bag limits closures etc are inevitable unless the underlying habitat and water issues are addressed.

[marty666]

Its interesting rading these post. You get this always:

• Stop commercial netting.
• Stop commercial fishing.
• Increase sizes
• Decrease Bag limits
• Stop catching and freezing fish.
• Introduce a licence.
• .
• .
• .

Maybe first we should determine if there is actually a problem, and if there is, what is causing the problem. Until then its all just speculation.

I have spend a fair amount of time chatting with some fairly high profile scientists that seem to suggest that that the top few problems are habitat destruction and pollution.

Ummm the 6 week no take on snapper and two other spices that is starting in February maybe a good sign that the government thinks there is a problem, Hey if there is no self control by the rec fishos then guess what the government steps in and does it, we can change our own ways and not have more pointless hoops to jump through or wait and then have licenses or longer no take periods. Is there even a lobby group for fishing where are they hiding

[NAGG]

Nagg you certainly portray a Holier than thou attitude. Your moral stance against taking a large haul of fish is irrelevant to the sustainability of fish stocks. For example one could go out and take home 100kg of Mahi Mahi and there would be very very little done to dent the sustainability of Mahi Mahi in QLD waters. They are one of the fastest breeding, fastest growing, great fighting and great eating fish in the ocean. If someone wants to grab a big bag of Mahi Mahi and pass on what they don't need to friends and family I have no problems with that. The Mahi will be there next year and the year after (yes they will be) so your resistance to taking more than 20kg in this example is simply a moral one not a sustainability one.

As for your other examples, please leave the other states out of this. The other states don't manage our fishery. Also you need to consider that in the 70's there were very little restrictions on Rec Anglers. The majority of rules and regulations we have now have come in the last 15 years. I don't give two hoots what happened in the 70's because the mistakes were realised and we have learnt from it. What is important now is are our current Rules, Regulations and sustainability measures doing the job.?



time to take the feelings out of it and think with the head.

Having fished a fair bit for Mahi Mahi ...... it is very easy to wipe them out of an area - If we fished the fads or fish trap floats and the word was out that the dollies were on - BANG! ..... they would cop a floggin and all you would catch were little tackers . Besides dollies dont freeze up that well and are best eaten fresh.

To ignore what has happened in the past or not to take notice of what other states are doing to improve their fisheries is not real smart ...... specially when some of these fisheries overlap.

What is important now is are our current Rules, Regulations and sustainability measures doing the job.?

......... spot on! - but are they working ???

I want someone to show me the science that the SE Qld fisheries are in a healthy state !

Chris

[Lovey80]

Ummm, its probably Ok if just one person goes out and takes 100 kg of Mahi mahi, but there are many tens of thousands of fishos in SE QLD alone . Say there are a conservative 5000 in QLD with boats who can get to mahi mahi, if they all did that one year, now thats 5000 x 100 kg and you have 500,000 kg of mahi mahi coming out of the fishery. Dunno about you, but I think 500 tonnes of mahi mahi coming out of the fishery along the QLD coast might dent the stock a little in the short term by the time they get down to SE QLD, despite mahi mahi being one of the fastest growing and most prolific spawners in the ocean. To suggest that sustained heavy fishing does not impact on a fish population is simply naive...

Fisheries management is a best guess process and the benefits of being more conservative with bag and size limits should mean more fish in the water (hopefully breeding). Now, whether the water and habitat quality remains high enough for those eggs and larvae to survive, that is another matter entirely. Sustainable fisheries management requires maintaining enough breeding sized fish to produce excess eggs, and keeping habitat and water quality high enough to ensure the life cycle is completed. The health of the whole food chain from plankton up relies on clean water - this is why the healthy waterways results are (unfortunately) the barometer for the health of our inshore fisheries. Because the water and habitat quality is declining, so will the productivity of the fisheries that rely on them (e.g. snapper), meaning that tighter bag limits closures etc are inevitable unless the underlying habitat and water issues are addressed.

Ben, I wasn't trying to advocate that every fisho in QLD should go out and bag 100kg a year in Mahi Mahi. At no stage was I attempting to make someone believe that heavy sustained fishing wouldn't impact on stocks. But it would be naive to think that there would ever be the possibility that those 5000 Rec Anglers could even get the chance to all bag 100kg of Mahi Mahi. But take that into context of what I was trying to say. The Mahi bag right now is 5 fish. So two blokes could go out and find a Mahi School and catch their bag quite easily of 10kg fish and break 100kg. Of course in a perfect world those two fishermen would not need another Mahi for well over twelve months even if they gave away a large portion. My point is that they should not be restricted from taking those 5 fish just because Nagg's conscience tells him it is greedy to do so. If the science (even on a best guess) is telling us that we are taking too many and need to cut back then so be it, we cut back. Not just because the new age catch and release fisho thinks that keeping more fish than can be eaten in one feed is being greedy. I hope I cleared that up.

On to your other point about Rec Anglers taking 500t of Mahi a year and its detrimental effect on stocks. Currently QLD DPI-F are claiming that the total take of snapper is somewhere around say 700t and Rec Anglers are taking 400t of that. They are also claiming that the recruitment of Snapper is sound.

Now hypothetically, considering that Mahi Mahi are a far faster breeding and far faster growing (to breeding stage and beyond) fish than what Snapper is.............. In your professional opinion if Rec Anglers were to take 500t on Mahi Mahi a year on a regular basis do you think that there would be a crisis on Mahi Mahi stocks?

Ben, always enjoy reading your posts and would love to hear your response to this one. Please feel free to start another thread if you feel replying here would be too much of a hijack.

[Lovey80]

Pop Gun,

another Idea for ya!

Consider closed seasons on pumping yabbies in some areas. In some areas I frequented as a kid there were seemingly unlimited amount of Yabbies and now days the same areas are baron. I say consider only because getting flogged by yabbie pumpers may not necessarily be the major cause. As others have alluded to water quality and other factors may be the reason for the decline but something that should be considered for sustainable fishing ideas for the future. At least until we can get the numbers back up.

[Lovey80]

Having fished a fair bit for Mahi Mahi ...... it is very easy to wipe them out of an area - If we fished the fads or fish trap floats and the word was out that the dollies were on - BANG! ..... they would cop a floggin and all you would catch were little tackers . Besides dollies dont freeze up that well and are best eaten fresh.

Hence why the bag has been dropped to 5 fish.

To ignore what has happened in the past or not to take notice of what other states are doing to improve their fisheries is not real smart ...... specially when some of these fisheries overlap.

Of course but the fact that PPB isn't catching 20lb Snapper anymore is irrelevant to how QLD manages it's fishery. We have already increased size and reduced bag limits and haven't given it time to take a full effect. Sydney copped a flogging from all sides up until recently and QLD isn't making the same mistakes [U]right now[U] as what the NSW fisheries did back in the 60's 70's and 80's so is irrelevant to this discussion now. Sure they overlap and there needs to be some co-operation on these fisheries but to use these as reasons to call people now working within the law greedy is drawing a really long bow
......... spot on! - but are they working ???

I want someone to show me the science that the SE Qld fisheries are in a healthy state !

We all would like to see the science (all of it) on how they come up with their conclusions, wether it be good or bad but I guess that would open them up to bouts of laughter from all sides then
Chris

My point I am trying to make with you here Chris is fisheries management is something that needs to be run on logic and not emotion. Not from Anglers that think anything more than a feed that night is being greedy not from fundamental green groups that think killing any living thing is murder and not from red necks that think that it is their right to take what ever they like when ever they like.

The bottom line is if a practice (any practice) is sustainable to the fishery then it should be considered as appropriate. If a practice is considered sustainable but there are environmental, economic and social reasons for restricting or removing that practice then it needs to be looked at.

Cheers

Chris

[burleygu]

im only thinking small here guys but i think it would be a good idea to see something in place (well not neccesarily in place) where we as recreational anglers have to take the responsibility to ensure the health and well being of the smaller and realeased fish is at its very best. perhaps a "rule" within the moreton bay marine park and other heavily fished areas and marine parks could require us as anglers to only use ' enviro type nets ' or barbless hooks just for an example. this is deffinately not a big impact idea nor should it neccesarily need to be enforced. but if every angler took the time to look after the released fish weather they be small fish unwanted fish or the monster you want to see fight another day. if these fish had a better rate of survival over a period of a few years there would be a significant increase in survival rates on released fish.

perhaps if the greens or whomever seen the recreational anglers making sacrifices such as doing away with netted nets' and using more fish friendly hooks on there request once again just examples they just might focus there efforts on better practices rather then closing areas straight off the bat.

[oldboot]

there definitely is a widespread campaign out there on safe release techniques......lots of the fishing shows pus it hard.

The QLD government has a "campaign" on the matter...... but like most things ya don't see much of it.....like the flathead identification "spot the dot" campaign....hardly anybody has heard of it.

QLD fisheries rely need to take their obligation under the act to "educate", far more serioulsy.

In the south and in NZ we are seeing state marine departments sponsoring & partisipating in Fishing shows.......what do we see from the QLD government.

Only advertising that promotes it polocies.

cheers