Also has limited science background, had no idea what et al was, can’t interpret the the QLD fishery possession limits, always has to have the last word, can’t extrapolate a thought and relies on google for a response- either a troll or a complete moron
Sure your not projecting your own ineptitude back on to me? You have no idea of what my science background is. And no I don't have another states peculiar fisheries regulations at the top of my head - and I did correct myself. And 'can’t extrapolate a thought and relies on google for a response' is garbled nonsense.Originally Posted by baitable
.
Go on step out behind the keyboard. Not to be a hypocrite- I have my honors in biotechnology at the university of QLD, I did my thesis at the Bribie island aquaculture centre studying cryopreservation of Amusium balloti and heat shock proteins, I have a peer reviewed research paper, I live in QLD and I’m concerned about you looking through binoculars without seeing what is around you. Your turn. And by the way you’re is you are. Learn to use grammar, it helps (your is possessive)
Quite impressive - so what happened?
[QUOTE=.......... And no I don't have another states peculiar fisheries regulations at the top of my head - and I did correct myself.......[/QUOTE]
Yet you argued through one hundred and ninety five posts on the subject.....Seriously?
Rubbish - I corrected myself after a couple of posts. And you must admit it's a bit confusing unless you read the preamble, and when others were talking about 'bag limits' and coming from NSW where we mainly have just bag limits.
Time for a group hug! We all have opinions, and those opinions don't always align with someone else's, we can argue/debate for ever, but, sometimes we can never agree (like now) comparing NSW laws with QLD is difficult, NSW has bag limits, boat limits AND possession limits, depending on the species, add to that size limits incorporating slot limits and it's bamboozling at best, but it seems this thread started life about poachers (I think) and it has run into a "them and us" "me against you" it's time to just agree to disagree and/or sensibly debate the issue at hand.
Baitable, I am interested in your view of this statement:
"Trends in the size and age compositions in landed catches suggest population rebuilding from around 2008 onwards, with continual increases in the average sizes and ages of fish in commercial landings [Wortmann et al. 2018]. This indicates that the stock in New South Wales waters is increasing under existing levels of harvest. This level of fishing mortality is unlikely to cause the biological stock to become recruitment impaired."
My thoughts are that if recruited fish are increasing in size and age does this means that there could be a depletion in juveniles of the species which seems contrary to the report outcomes.
Juveniles are protected by size limits and a depletion in juveniles would be contrary to the fact that a lot of the fishing effort has been removed. What it means is that the fish are growing to a bigger size and older age before being caught and the inference is that stocks are re building. Also if there are more bigger and older fish then there should be more recruitment.
So neither of us are fisheries scientists - so whats wrong with me using citations and quotes from those that are, and why are you intent on ignoring them? Except of course deriding them with jibes like: 'relies on google for a response'.
Well, I'm off to get some more popcorn ><>
LP
Kingfisher Painting Solutions:- Domestic and Commercial.
For further information, contact details, quotes or advice - Click Here
Pick up an extra large for me, and a case of Carlton Dry........
If we are just here for drinks and banter now I'll have a case of one of those fruity craft IPAs that taste like beer mixed with pasito.
For those keeping score I am not a fisheries scientist. I was enrolled in science at university for 8 years and all I got was a HECS debt and a drinking problem.
Cheers Matt
To be honest, it would help to see the raw data, sample size, duration of samples collected along with the purpose of the study and in what context. What species is the report referring to?
Without further reading of the report: your assumptions would be correct, if new recruitment was successful (i.e. biomass on the increase) then you should see an increase in juveniles caught which might indicate an increase in biomass to which they are using as an indicator for fish stocks. They do preface most reports however with " our understanding of why recruitment varies in space and time, and of its relative contribution to population changes, is still limited and requires further investigation."
The funny thing is, the spawning biomass can only increase in size with younger juveniles coming of sexual maturity age, the older fish cannot simply increase in number for obvious reasons but can only spawn to eventually create larvae. Again it appears that that the FRDC can only use limited information given to them by us and commercial catches to draw conclusions. This is why i always like to take one step back and apply simnple reasoning. Data can always be skewed omitted and interpreted in many ways, I could easily pick and choose what article i want to reference to support my argument.
Here is my simple reasoning: I use to fish offshore in moreton bay, around 15 years ago, catches were far more plentiful, i travelled less to get larger fish in greater numbers and in a shorter period of time in a far smaller boat with simpler electronics. Now, if i replicate my exact same routine in a more capable boat with better electronics and better knowledge, I could not repeat the same catch. I have since shifted my fishing further a field where i travel further, have a larger boat, spend more time on the water to find better fish populations. I am yet to hear reports to the contrary with regards to offshore species within my locale siting a sample size over a 15 year (or plus) period. I would rather be cautious and do everything i can to preserve what we have by whatever means to leave something for the next generation. If we're wrong about about our control of fishery management there are only 2 outcomes. 1-you and I will be restricted to catching less fish maybe even shut out or 2. we decimate what we have and loose it all together.
I think the last line of thinking is overly dramatic. Sure if we were talking pre 1990’s regulations where bags were unlimited or MLS were non existent that would be a real possibility. But even the previous disaster of a stock assessment Fisheries noted that the Snapper fishery was not at risk of a collapse because of current (at the time) management arrangements. Preserving a large percentage of the stock under 35cm’s does that.
What has changed is Fisheries pivoted from protecting the stock from a collapse/sustainability to rebuilding the stock to a percentage of the virgin biomass. They’ve got not the faintest idea what the virgin biomass was. They’re using a highly questionable mathematical model to reverse engineer what that virgin biomass was and in doing so, they are using extrapolated data for recreational fishermen based off phone polls and boat ramp surveys.
As time has gone on, those increases in MLS and bag limits haven’t really done a lot to protect 35cm + fish in shallow areas such as Moreton bay and the close in reefs off of the Gold Coast where Gold Coast charter operators want to take their punters to save on fuel. Those areas, where the majority of the states recreational fishermen fish (and subsequently provide the lions share of the data) get hammered. So the percentage of fish caught in those areas in the 50-60-70+ size brackets is tiny. Makes sense too. If the majority of the 750k Recs are hitting MB and GC then the chances that a fish is going to make it past 50cm before being caught is remote. I’d also guess that those few 70+ fish that do get caught in the bay are the ones that have migrated in from deeper and more remote offshore locations that rarely get hit.
If what I’ve written above is correct, or even largely so, then increasing the MLS to 45cm in MB (and all areas shallower than 40m depth), makes a whole lot of sense.
May sound like a difficult rule to enforce. But I think it is actually easier than the current changes. All that would be required is to draw a line from the NSW border north to the extent of the Snapper habitat along the 40m line. Get caught fishing inside that line with a fish on board that is under 45cm and you’re busted.
Democracy: Simply a system that allows the 51% to steal from the other 49%.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote