Are you joking? I just have a different view, doesn't make me wrong, or a pain, and to think I made an effort to start posting again and run into this shit....no thanks.Originally Posted by chris69
Are you joking? I just have a different view, doesn't make me wrong, or a pain, and to think I made an effort to start posting again and run into this shit....no thanks.
Seriously Noel,
get over yourself and go back to the Hull Truth….. I was once supportive of your contributions but now it’s clear you are not accepting of other’s opinions or view’s…
You should know better, opinions are like arseholes….. everyone’s got one and yours is no more important than others.
Matilda
Imagine for a moment that other govt depts operated under the same hamstrung budgets and methodologies.
Main Roads & Transport.... No new roads or upgrades so a cap or reductions on car registrations.
Health.... No new hospitals or upgrades so a patient cap and restrictions on health conditions for admittance.
Sport & Recreation.... Sorry, but your local footy clubs have to close.
Social Services...... not viable
Add infinitum.
It seems every other dept has the capacity/budget to contribute and expand infrastructure/services as participation increases, yet Fisheries are hobbled and only appear to increase restrictions and reductions.
And yes I realize one is due to increased population (people), the other due to decreased population (fish).
Regardless, for most depts it seems participation (forecast or actual) is by far the major driver for 'improvement' in lieu of restrictions (perhaps excluding NPWS).
And should people numbers be declining like estimated fish numbers, would they not spend countless millions increasing immigration to reap the benefits?
Personally, I think Fisheries are way too far behind the eight ball to ever catch up, let alone get in front.
Just an overly simplistic thought after a few early beers.
Cheers
I don't think it is a matter of throwing more money at it. In other word's it costs almost nothing to adjust bag limits, size limits, etc. Things like roads, schools, etc are a different case. Obviously there will be a bigger spend to cater for a growing population.
This fisheries management caper all seems overly complicated and any measurable results seem to take forever to establish.
It seems to my naive perspective that it is one of the few natural resources that we have the technology and information to fairly quickly replenish.
Just need the will and the dollars,
Cheers
Well, it looked like you were trying to make it more complicated - wanting to throw more money at it. We rely on their natural ability to replenish themselves - stocking with hatchery fish is not proven on a large scale for non - impoundment fish.
I'll admit my ignorance is abundant, but if artificial restocking has not been proven, does it necessarily follow that it has been proven to be 'ineffective' in all cases of species specific stock depletion?
If so, I willingly concede it is not worth further consideration. However I've noticed NSW fisheries are actively involved in restocking, albeit not govt funded. I personally doubt this is simply a PR move.
'Throwing money at it' does not necessarily equate to making it more complicated. It could just as easily make it less complicated and more effective.
We know which species are struggling. We know (approximately) our 'take" from that species. And we know (approximately) survival rates off offspring thru natural recruitment, or so I'm led to believe. We know spawning habits and locations. We know participation rates.
It follows in my simple mind that any artificial boost in recruitment for any struggling species, not necessarily restricted to fish, equal to or exceeding the perceived deficit would only be advantageous.
I've no idea if a concerted effort over any period of time for a particular species has been conducted and the results compared to current methods.
Has this been attempted in the real world? Perhaps it has. Or has it been a paper exercise focusing purely on the economic viability of current funding?
Or perhaps the NSW restocking program is just a PR move with no scientific justification.
It is undeniably less expensive to continue the eternal adjustments and restrictions and the 'wait and see' methods to determine how the various stocks respond, but in this day and age is it necessary to only stay on this track which hasn't always produced the desired result?
I'm not advocating removal of existing limits. At least in the short term. I'm suggesting an additional strategy that I consider is being overlooked simply by restrictive funding.
For heavens sake, we know which individual amino acids and salts trigger a response in the olfactory and gustatory receptors of individual fish species.
Surely, at that level of investigation, we should by now be aware of additional methods to enhance depleted stocks than are currently in use.
I believe the knowledge, research and capability are there. If not, it should be vigorously pursued.
And in my opinion if proven to have a positive influence, it should be funded and incorporated in the management strategies.
Cheers
Great post TheGurn. It’s certainly a better path forward than simply changing mathematic models every few years.
Democracy: Simply a system that allows the 51% to steal from the other 49%.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote