Coral Reef Fin Fish bag limit.

[Lovey80]

The bag limit is 20. Meaning that if you were to catch your bag on a few species you couldn’t take other species of CRFF. Does anyone know why? How does taking say Moses Perch affect the sustainability of other species of CRFF?

I’m just curious to know the rationale behind the total bag.

[Noelm]

I guess it's just a way to stop big catches of lots of species, by introducing a total limit, right or wrong? beats me, we have a similar thing with our "deep sea" fish that are caught deep dropping over the shelf, regardless of how many fishermen there are on a single boat, there is boat limits, kind of the same thing.

[ozynorts]

Need to also remember it is a possession limit... If you have fish in the freezer at home they need to be counted as part of your possession limit............
If you read up all the bag limits on various species and you were able to catch your limit on every species you would be removing a lot of fish from the ocean.
For instance you are talking about CRFF species. Currently you are limited to 20 in a mixed bag but if you were able to bag out on trout (7), rte (8), Red emp (5), hussar (10), nannygai (9) and maori cod (5) then that is 44 fish for 1 person........ That is a lot of fish and that will damage the fish stocks..

[BigE]

every time this subject come up I always ask the same question , bag limits and slot limits are supposed to be about making the rec take sustainable.

the problem i have with this bullshit is that none of our learned scientist and pollies will ever give a sustainable number at which point a bag or slot limit will be reversed in favour of the rec fisher and that is because it's all about locking the rec fisherman out of the stock.

even if there were so many fish about that they were jumping into your boat they would still keep the bag limits , cause it's not really about the fish stock at all it just about controlling the general public.

BigE

[Noelm]

I don't think it's about controlling the public, it is (as mentioned) a possible method to stop over fishing by the thousands of rec fishermen, taking bag limits of all possible species, whether it's right or wrong is anyone's guess, and could be argued forever.

[BigE]

Respect your thoughts Noelm , but i don't agree with them i guess i just look at things a little differently.

I think most rec fishers struggle to bag out every trip so i think the position of thousands of rec bagging out every trip is not a very realistic outcome.
I think that about 5% of fisherman would bag out every trip (maybe less)

anyone want to put up there hand as the fisherman or woman that bags out every trip ? ( i think the list will be short)

as for my controlling the public opinion .... well isn't this what all government regulation is about?? I certainly can't remember the last bit of red tape or regulation that was designed to make it easier for good old Joe Bloggs.

for mine i think the bag limit should be just a number and not broken into species , I mean every thing has a season and when something is in season thats when you pick it or harvest it , i think fishing should be the same when the snappa are on you should be able to catch snappa when the tailor are on you catch them when the mac's are on you take them. this 5 of this 4 of that and 2 of those is just something decided by a pen pusher.

Cheers
BigE

[Lovey80]

I see some logical opinions here and thanks, but I don’t think it’s been answered.

We we have a bag of 5 Pearl Perch in the Rocky Reef Fin (RRFF) category. 4 Snapper etc etc They don’t have a total 20 bag on RRFF. So is there any science behind the 20 bag on the CRFF or did someone in government decide that 20 is enough and that’s that?

[marto78]

It's a different kind of fishery when out targeting snapper and pearlies your not going to get the same bycatch as if you were chasing coral trout where you are going to catch just as many if not more red throat and hussar.

Very easy to get 20 fish off 1770 if you keep all your hussar but off Brisbane the bycatch is a lot smaller when targeting a species. Well thats my opinion for what its worth.

[NAGG]

Maybe 20 CRFF is just an arbitrary number …….. but regardless it is a bloody lot of fish (if not by number - by weight) - and maybe that is the point of it - (reducing over exploitation).

To me even 20 CRFF seems too high specially in this day and age where technology , boat & motor reliability puts the odds much more in the anglers favour . These days we can & do venture further and have that ability to overnight further increasing catch rates.

There are plenty of examples through out Australia where fish species fall under the same umbrella and form part of the total bag limit or even boat limit - so it's not just CRFF .

Finally , I totally disagree that because a fish is in season it means that this used as the justification to harvest …….. that is the recipe for decimating fish stocks & it's often why aggregation periods form part of closed seasons - for many fisheries.

Chris

[copie]

Well my 2 cents worth...….. I have lived in Brisbane all my life 58 years and have fished it from a child as well as hundreds of trips to Hervey Bay. I do agree with bag limits at present and as said above for many fisherman it is never or rarely reached. Qld government has introduced green zones, go slow zones etc and yes there are soo many more people fishing these days with better equipment. what needs to occur in my opinion is the immediate stop to commercial fishing in the bay and the Brisbane river by this I mean trawling and netting. Many years ago this type of fishing was stopped at Hervey bay and within about five years fisho's could again catch a mackeral and other species without having to travel to o far. Have a look in the Brisbane river on a week day at the trawlers and the mud slick they leave behind. I don't have all the answers but smashing the bay and the river heavily 5 days a week need to stop.

Mangrove protection green zones and more artificial structures are all needed but it appears we are too slow with acting on these so add these and stop that and maybe just maybe good fishing might return to Moreton Bay. Just imagine if most recreational fisherman could not catch fish on most outings what would happen to the supporting industries boats, tackle, bait, trailers, repairs to all mentioned.

[Lovey80]

I agree with bag limits also..... on individual fish species. Unless of course there is some sort of scientificly known symbiotic relationship between CRFF species.

I’m not going to get into arguments about what is too many fish because it’s either sustainable or it’s not.

I guess my point is. If I have my bag of say Coral trout and a few other CRFF in a mixed bag that makes up my 20 fish. How is me NOT taking a legal sized Hussar or spangled empr from that point on help the sustainability of Coral trout? Has this been articulated? Or is it simply someone in fisheries deciding what is greedy and what is not?

i can’t find any rationale online for it. It seems like the reduction in bag on Mahi Mahi a while back from 5 to 2 “just because” that was reversed.

[baitable]

So glad to see some fisho's on here with a positive attitude towards sustainable conservation. I'm all for heading out to catch a few fish and I usually impose my own bag limits on my crew (which luckily are all on the same mindset). The facts we cannot deny is fish stocks arnt what they use to be. We are now armed with better fish finding equipment, knowledge of feeding cycles/habitat and better boats to pursue more remote fishing grounds. Why not take the view that fish stocks need to be managed to maintain fish for all? If we're wrong, fish stocks increase - thats a WIN. If we're right, we helping future proof for the next generation. The rationale of arguing against the proposed fish limits only suits PERSONAL gain... think about it..... Its the usual whinge- "well i only get out a few times the year, i spend all this money on fuel, i deserve more fish.... who gives a crap about everyone else I want to get my eskys full "

[back2boats]

It's a different kind of fishery when out targeting snapper and pearlies your not going to get the same bycatch as if you were chasing coral trout where you are going to catch just as many if not more red throat and hussar.

Very easy to get 20 fish off 1770 if you keep all your hussar but off Brisbane the bycatch is a lot smaller when targeting a species. Well thats my opinion for what its worth.

Depends where you fish. What you say about hussar is true off 1770, but off Cooktown, in our 'fav' spots, hardly any hussar and other rubbish. Lot's of Trout though

[back2boats]

Or is it simply someone in fisheries deciding what is greedy and what is not?

I think it's true that the overall bag limits are not very scientifically derived. I think that's because it is not easy to do. However, I do think we need some limits, and lacking anything better, a limit at what seems "greedy" might be what we have to implement.

[Lovey80]

I don’t think you’ll find anyone on here arguing that we don’t need limits. And when it comes to individual species I think the majority are in agreement that in possession limits of those species are necessary. There may be some debate on what those bags may be, case in point the last reduction in Snapper limits that was only imposed on rec fishos, that had no basis in scientific fact, and was a random decision by a politician with no expertise. But the theory on why is sound and we all can agree on that.

But let’s say I’m out fishing and I have a bag of:

7 trout
5 reds
8 Hussar

I have my bag of 20 and cannot take another CRFF. How does me now not taking a flame snapper or a job fish help the stocks of say Hussar or gold band snapper? Is there some sort of observed relationship between CRFF species I don’t know about?

Obviously me taking a bag of larger species on top of my 20 are going to help say Hassar who get eaten by the larger species. Similarly if you’re looking at it from a biomas perspective if you’ve already taken 7 trout and no say flame snapper yet, then taking some flame snapper would actually help the remaining Trout in that area as those remaining trout would have less competition for the available food source. There’s two (however weak) arguements for taking the other species and may be a red herring path to go down.

Is there a similar observed phenomenon that is the opposite of the examples above? Or is it simply just easier from a fisheries management perspective (or just plain lazy) to assume that in a given area you are more likely to get a mixed bag of CRFF hit your 20 fish then move off CRFF areas to target other species and hence reduce pressure on them all? If so why did they stop with this methodology for CRFF and not RRFF or pelagics? Now that it’s introduced and fisheries wasn’t lynched at the stake can we expect them to roll this methodology into other fisheries? All of a sudden we could find ourselves with combined limits on inshore species as well?