I am curious Flatzie about the tailor you say you are getting/seeing while netting is occurring. What size are the tailor?
I am curious Flatzie about the tailor you say you are getting/seeing while netting is occurring. What size are the tailor?
The tailor have been sized from 30 - 55cm. There have been schools of them smashing into bait in the green zone area of South Reef, only a few days ago. Snapper are everywhere along the Peninsular for those who know how to catch them as well.
I have been getting Tailor regularly as by catch when fishing for snaps! The notion that a bit of netting close to the shore for mullet will shut the fishing down is ill founded there. maybe so up north, but this discussion is at Redcliffe.
Ok I'll try this for the 3rd time and leave out all the important detail.
There is no reason why Redcliffe should be any different to the rest of the world. A net there will spook fish just as a net in the Meditteranean will spook fish.
However, there are any number of variables associated with fish spooking around nets.
Haul size, bait/food presence, current flow and coastline geography, fish age and experience being some.
Without knowing some of the details associated with when the nets are shot, when Flatzie caught/saw tailor or how large the haul/s were, it is very difficult to know which variables are in play. But be assurred that a net at Suttons Beach with mullet in it is spooking fish that anglers would like to catch and won't as a result.
There should have been a few whiting or bream in the net/s. Either they've already been spooked or populations are very low.
Can't imagine how mullet netting on the scale that it is currently conducted in SEQ can possibly be sustainable. That would very much defy very simple logic.
Lindsay
Hi lindsay
as you say the nets may spook the fish but at suttons beach it is more likely to be swimmers spooking fish as it is a well used swimming beach with a life guard area it is very shallow at low tide probable 6ft 100m off shore in most of the area not very many if anybody fish there for anything other than the netted mullet
because of the swimmers ect
shane
Hi there. Redcliffe has a lot of rocky reef and bays this may affect the area abandonment as compared to an open beach. Also I got a couple of Squire out from Suttons this morning before the traffic got to heavy, so not sure if hey are affected the same or they migrate in from other reef in the area.(maybe from the green zone to the south ha ha). Pete
Snapper are unaffected by beach netting. Only fish of species that have a history of being netted from the beach are affected. And yes, the reef areas can potentially alter area abandonment and where the fish go to. But if that is the case, then the fish are a lot smarter than any of us are giving them credit for. They must know that nets can't be shot over shallow reef country - which is entirely feasible.
Not convinced that swimmers would spook the fish to any great degree. They are very adaptive and have demonstrated tolerances to all sorts of circumstances that don't kill them - boats, jetskis, pollution. The mouth of the Brisbane would be a case in point.
there was 3 groups of netters on the bribie island surf beach saturday afternoon with big hauls of mullet
There are lots of things that no doubt affect all sorts of wildlife. Ive seen schools of dolphin feeding in close along all the beaches of Redcliffe, cant tell me that wont send fish of all sorts for cover, abandonment or whatever.
What gets me is that it seems to some people that we as humans are not part of the environment, so obviously everything we do is either unsustainable, damaging, wrong etc etc. ad infinitum.
We cant walk somewhere as we may damage the environment, and so it goes on and on. People have been fishing with nets for centuries, and yes some of it is huge and unsustainable, but in a general sense for thousands of years its always been a feasible way to catch food.
Sorry, but we are apart of the environment, we are predators, and when we or some other predator behavior enter the scene, a lot of prey move off. Whats so strange or should I say wrong with that? Wildlife fleeing predators...Oh No!! Give me a break! Welcome to the jungle.
Slider seems to think I saw Tailor feeding while netting was taking place, I never said that, I simply noted that during this netting period and lot of tailor are around, and a lot of tailor are being caught and being observed behaving normally, Ie not chased over the horizon by the practice of netting.
This afternoon we nailed, 3 tailor, missed a few more, along with snapper (see my Post) and two nice flatties, right near Suttons beach. Not sustainable Slider? Old salts will tell you they have been netting mullet there for donkeys years.
I have no interest in netting, mullet, and believe in conserving stocks, i think catch limits and sizes and green zones are good, but I cant stand the scaremongering, exaggeration and overreaction that goes on and that vilifies certain people groups operating differently to us.
I repeat, if you have a problem with netting, and buy Pillies, or other netted bait, whats your point?
My thoughts here are not meant to be personal, I believe in rigorous discussion on key issues that affect the great life we enjoy through fishing.
Cheers
Flatzie
...........Originally Posted by Slider
From the Sunshine Coast Daily monday 20 june
http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au...-beach-winter/
randell
spoke to an ex suttons beach netter saturday arvo over some brews. he said they(current netters) netted 7 - 9 ton of mullet off suttons on their last week. hes also said most of the catch are frozen and kept for next crabbing season. he believes its all legit.
these guys are local fisherman. they aren't the same guys from up and down the coast. thats from the horses mouth!
Flatzie, you are right in saying that mullet netters shouldn't be villified for what they do. That's not my intention if that has been perceived. But it is my intention for government to stop the netting of the Noosa North Shore/Rainbow and of Fraser Island with appropriate compensation provided. I make no apologies for utilising every opportunity to further the case and to educate everybody that I can about the impacts of mullet netting and the reasons why the overall practice needs to be altered. There are thousands of anglers relying on me to do what I can and the conservation of inshore fish stocks, dolphins, terns, turtles and gannets is a significant factor as well. It's not a game I necessarily want to be playing or enjoy and it's not much fun receiving criticism and threats to my person and property, but someone must.
Mullet netting in its current form cannot be sustainable and the fact that mullet are still being netted in their tonnes doesn't mean that it is. The pros themselves blame water quality issues and habitat destruction for a downturn in mullet populations. I have no reason to doubt that water quality and habitat loss is having a serious impact. But the fact that mullet schools are netted from Bundaberg to the Tweed prior to their spawning must, in conjunction with the other two factors play a role in reducing populations. How can it not?
How do we ascertain that mullet stocks are falling - other than the pros stating that they are? Well, it's very difficult. But, as has been nominated as a factor with the grey mackerel populations, a netted school that 20 years ago might have had 20 tonne in it, may today have only 10 tonne. But repeated netting with increased efficiencies of today's technologies and learned techniques and methods can equate to a total catch stat that indicates that all is well when catch stats are the method by which Fisheries assess species biomass. Who's to say that in 10 years time the school sizes won't reduce to 5 tonne and Fisheries still claiming sustainability as a result of more, but smaller schools being netted and statistics remaining relatively constant. The Precautionary Principle of fisheries management, based on the above factors, needs to be applied to the mullet fishery. If the logic and the evidence points towards a reduced mullet population and nothing is done to alter the fishery and stocks crash, as has happened with mullet in many other locations around the world, then who takes responsibility?
Now to make one thing very clear. I don't want mullet netting stopped across the board. I simply want areas to be set aside where netting does not occur so that recreational anglers have areas where they can fish and have reasonable opportunities for success. At the same time, terns, gannets, turtles and dolphins also have areas where they can feed adequately without nets spooking the fish that they are entirely dependant on. Cooloola and Fraser is an appropriate area to be set aside due to high rec fisher participation rates, a number of tern roosting sites, turtle breeding and nesting sites, World Heritage Listing and important spawning and feeding grounds for multiple species of inshore fish. Fishing tourism should be allowed to prosper and tailor is one of many species that predominate in these areas and which can be a drawcard for fishers from interstate and overseas. Then there are the permit, bonefish, golden trevs and tarpon that are recognised as being of extremely high value to rec fishers around the world.
Mike, as mentioned, I wrote 2 posts that didn't make it to the site for whatever reason and which contained detail associated with Flatzie's claims of seeing/catching tailor when netting was occurring. I didn't profess to know when nets were shot, haul size and when in relation to these things that Flatzie saw/caught tailor nearby the netting site as that would have been silly. I wasn't happy that my posts didn't make it on the site as it left me vulnerable to posts like yours.
As it turns out, the net only had a tonne or two in it which would only cause small scale spooking for perhaps a couple of kilometres in either direction along the coast and for perhaps a couple of days. Should that net have had 10 tonne in it, then the spooking would have affected the coastline for perhaps tens of kilometres and for perhaps a week or more. It also turns out that Flatzie isn't claiming that he caught/saw tailor when netting was occurring, but the message was that the nets don't spook the fish at Redcliffe like they do up north.
The variables here are a bit difficult to deal with but I'll do my best.
If Flatzie caught/saw tailor before the net was shot then that factor is irrelevant. If he caught/saw the tailor the day after the netting, then I would be surprised. But, area abandonment can be reversed by a heavy bait/food presence which is indicated by the tailor feeding on the surface, and particularly if the relevant fish are young, inexperienced fish. 2 -3 yr old tailor which Flatzie has indicated the tailor were, do spook around nets, but nothing like a 6 yr old tailor would. So even if he saw/caught the tailor the day after the net was shot, doesn't mean that these tailor must be spooked if there is a heavy bait presence. But if another net or two were to be shot with a decent haul of mullet involved, then I'll bet my last dollar that the tailor would bolt for the hills.
If Flatzie saw/caught the tailor 3 days after a small haul of mullet, then I wouldn't be surprised and particularly if there is a heavy bait presence.
But let's say that 20 tonne of mullet were caught in the nets as reported at Wurtulla in the SCD article, then I can absolutely guarantee that there would not be any tailor over 1 yr old or bream, whiting, tarwhine, trevally, jew available for shore based anglers within many kilometres of the netting site for many days and perhaps up to a week and a half. All very well for those with boats who can get out to the reef, but shore based would be fruitless.
Other variables such as current flow can dictate how long the area abandonment lasts. High current flow disperses the chemical alarm substance that alarmed or damaged fish emit (schreckstoff) more quickly than does minimal current flow. Bays trap schreckstoff with places like Laguna and Platypus Bay having area abandonment last for a full week before dispersal.
Another potential variable is the reef structure that could cause the tailor to feel safe from netting whilst in close proximity to the structure. If tailor as a species do not have previous trauma to learn from of being netted around reef areas by shore based nets, then this could be the case. Green zones can cause a similar circumstance, but I would be dubious in this case with green zones in this area having only been established a couple of years ago.
The fish behavioural traits that I speak of cannot be summarised easily in a few paragraphs when there are multiple variables and locations involved. I welcome any questions, feedback, criticisms to be forthcoming, as this enables me to answer those queries which I haven't outlined adequately already. I have nothing to hide and if anyone can pick my eye out then I will have only learned something. As yet nobody has over the years despite a fair bit of effort on some individual's part. There's the challenge for those that want to try on this occasion.
Lindsay
I know that many recs consider it ok for mullet to be used as crab bait. But does the bait really need to have the fillets on. If the argument that the pros provide of supplying fresh fish to the non-fishing public is to hold any water, then filleting the catch would give them a little more credibility.
I'm not saying that the netting of Suttons isn't legit. I'm saying that the overall mullet industry is not good for rec fishing on the whole and in the long term will prove unsustainable.
Was brought to my attention last night that the photos in the Sunshine Coast Daily of the Wurtulla netting show that none of the catch was iced. Although I can't find on the Fisheries website the regulation that requires the catch to be iced, I am fairly certain that it is the case. However, I rarely see any ice being used on any of the netted fish from Teewah Beach, including tailor, snub nosed dart, bream, tarwhine, whiting, and golden trevs. Now I'm assuming that these species are not being frozen for crab bait, which begs the obvious question.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote