Here's something interesting.
Was at Southbank today for the Food Festival.
The Commercial Fisherman Of Moreton Bay had a stand selling Mullet (Fried) , $ 5 to the general public.
Was asked to sign a petition against the limiting of netting in the bay. Refused .
The public were signing the petition.
Do they really know enough about netting and the new proposals to sign this.
To me was just a way of getting a lot of signatures.
Historian/Collector of Old Sidecast Fishing Reels
Mate I know the guys that run markwells and guys that worked there regularly over the years and the times that fish aren't utilized are very rare, I myself eat the fish you are talking about that's been trucked down from noosa and its quite good quality even when I buy my bait from these guys which is around 500 kg a year the quality is good and edible.
The quality control at the work place is second to none as far as looking after product and hygiene,the local public get there share if bait,food is needed no one misses out it is shared through the public like local tap water even the heads are sold to tweed bait only things left are back bones and they get snapped up by locals also.
As far as spotty mackeral its been no worse or better since the ring net closures and the Spanish have nothing to do with the net fishery,the seasonal mackeral runs fluctuate like they always have based on water temp and food source dictating which locations get the better runs of fish just like it always has for years and years nothing changed other than Spanish which is considered to be losing its overall average size based on research which could be a concern.
The major concern is the massive increase in recreational latent effort that is making the commercial take look abysmal and is often wasted and greederly frozen and stockpiled not cut up fresh and distributed to the public like a public resource should be.
As far as the public being duked into signing petitions thats gold considering I couldn't get onto ausfish the other day without being directed to a fisheries review to get uneducated fisherman to oppose netting in the same way gotta laugh at least they got a feed.
Well it's nice to know that Tweed locals are getting the most out of Noosafish while Noosa locals are eating muddy lake Weyba mullet. Also nice to know that edible and inexpensive mullet is being used for bait while the commercial sector cries about cheap imports that they can't compete with.
"Aren't utilised" - I take this to mean that they are binned as it seems that even when the whole fish goes to fertiliser, it is being 'utilised' .... but perhaps not in the fashion that the general public expect their wild caught native fish to be utilised. We discovered the use of such terms by the commercial sector when 30 tonne of Noosa mullet were left on the beach for 12 hours last year. Markwells bought the entire catch but they seemed to avoid pointing out exactly what they were used for and there can be little doubt about the eating quality. Then there was the 5 tonne at Stockton this year that were in the sun for 5 hours. These are 2 cases that the media managed to find out about, but we know that there is waste with every large haul because of the crushing in the net. Then there's the half an industrial bin of dart we found in 2013, the tonne of pilchards that the netter thought were tailor at Double Island Point last year and were left on the beach. Bronwyn Bishop would have a seizure if she knew what was happening in the mullet haul industry.
The massive increase in recreational latent effort? Probably brought about by the fact that they're all finding it harder to catch a feed. The recreational effort on the other hand is controlled by bag and size limits as well as green zones/marine parks and in the absence of nets has been found to allow the recovery of fish number and size. Seems like you have a problem with recs catching their own fish and eating them themselves ... as they are surely entitled to do, given that it is a public resource as you say. At the end of the day, as has been extensively studied all around the world and in every state of Aus, the recs ultimately pay more per kg of fish than if they bought it from a pro and this money sustains an industry many times the size of the commercial sector.
If we are going to net mullet, then we need to go about it a whole lot better than we are currently. This means utilising the catch in a manner that meets the expectations of the Australian public and has minimal detrimental effect on other species and industries.
"Bronwyn Bishop would have a seizure if she knew what was happening in the mullet haul industry."
Why didnt someone tell her so she could have chartered a chopper .
Cheers
Ray
No choppers about at the moment Rayken, netters spooked em allOriginally Posted by rayken1938
Nice unsubstantiated facts there slider you actually believe what other people say that's what they call in the law hearsay doesn't hold any weight at all bud just rumours there your facts right good work you've been busy, the rec bags your talking about far out way what a lot of commercials can take of a lot of species by a mile and the wastage is phornominal not uncommon too see recs killing fish and throwing them back or a high percentage selling there catch all fact and seen with my eyes and fisheries officers.
The funny thing is slider I don't like netting one bit and agree with some things but if your gonna be one eyed and ban a sustainable fishery that's operated for millennium your gonna have to ban recs as well because unless you've had the blinders on all your life you'll notice that most rec fishery species are stuffed and it ain't the commercials fault the sooner you wake up to yourself and put your efforts where it's needed it's only gonna get worse and no rec licence and green zones and bag limits are gonna help one iota.
So if you see it, it's substantiated. But if I see it, then it's hearsay?
If bag limits are too generous and the commercial sector can demonstrate this, somehow, then the commercial sector should be making overtures to FQ on the matter. But again this curious situation keeps surfacing of fish recovering in size and number in any location where nets are removed and recreational fishing allowed .... under the existing laws. How can this possibly occur if it was water quality, habitat loss or rec pressure that caused the depletion that the fish recovered from?
Just for the record - it is not my ambition to shut down the mullet industry. On the contrary, I also believe that they can be sustainably fished for a long time to come and should be and I have consistently expressed this opinion over the years incl on Ausfish. But there are better ways of harvesting that minimise wastage and the impact on other species and industries and that is where I am coming from.
Also just for the record - for about a 12 year period between 1995 & 2007, I would have been on the beach fishing for an absolute minimum of 200 days a year. Prior to that it was only most weekends and holidays from age 3 (1971). Where I live requires driving along the beach (Teewah Beach) to get to and from home which adds further to observation opportunities. Or sometimes I'd take a run or walk up to 20kms along the beach looking for fish - I'm as skilled as a pro at spotting schools .... or not, as has been the case since about 2007/08. I too have had the chance to observe a few things, as have many recs who are far from clueless when it comes to understanding what's occurring in Qld's fisheries.
Samson, we all know there are bad eggs in both sectors who are selling their catch illegally, netting illegally blowing bag limits etc. The only remedy for that is policing.
Seen enough with my eyes to get four ausfish members prosecuted for illegal fishing and there's some of the most respected guys on this site doing the same that if they don't pull their heads in will encounter the same, if you say you see a lot put your efforts to better uses and stamp out the real threats and stop worrying about spooked fish this is just part of every fishery which is getting less and less in the commercial sector and more and more in rec side but you don't see the commercial publicly trying to ban recreationals,as I've said I don't like netting but agree with probably the only form your against but with net buy backs the way there going there extinct very soon but a lot of people will suffer for it.
There is absolutely no evidence that net free areas reduce the supply of seafood and if there was the commercial sector would be going hell for leather with it. The only evidence available points to an improved supply of seafood by commercials. I recently went through with a fine tooth comb, a document titled "A socio- economic evaluation of the commercial fishing industry in the Ballina, Clarence and Coffs Harbour regions" which was commissioned for the commercial sector. In this document, the catch data is shown to be stable from before implementation of RFHs until 2009 - despite there being net free areas and a substantial buy out. While the doc states that the commercial sector would be opposed to any more RFHs, there is no mention of RFHs having impacted on yields ... which you would think would be hammered if there was even an inkling that they might have.
I also recently compiled charts of commercial catch data for the Hinchinbrook channel where 3 net free areas were declared in '99 for dugong protection. By far and away the healthiest looking fishery of the many fishery grids in Qld that I've charted with particular improvement following '99 with increasing cpue and yields and declining effort - just as you want a chart to look. None of the other charts I've built look like that and have increasing effort, reducing cpue and yields all over the shop.
wouldn't the catch rate be stable simply because of quotas? makes little difference if 20 people catch (say) 2 tonnes each or 2 people catch 20 tonnes each, same "stable" data is the end result.
Importantly, the data isn't going down. And that is the entire argument that the commercial sector is putting forward as to why NFAs should be opposed by the general public - that there "won't be fresh seafood to supply to the local markets which will open the door to cheap and inferior quality imports". just don't let the general public know that the assertion has no basis in fact.
But you are right Noelm - less fishers catch the same quota or total annual yield and make more money .... and have certainty that the fishery will keep producing because there are NFAs . The recs are happy and have stopped pestering Gov and affected native wildlife like seabirds, turtles, dugong, manta/eagle ray and dolphins have a more secure future.
The attached pdf is graphs of commercial catch data for the 4 commercial fishery grids, inclusive of the 3 dugong protected or net free areas at Hinchinbrook. Speak for themselves really.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote