Science behind the proposed closures

[Gazza]

[quote author=billfisher link=1157429646/45#55 date=1157682696]Why do we need size and bag limits? You are joking aren't you?

We need them to ensure the sustainability of the fishery while allowing the socially and economically valuable pastime that is recreational fishing to continue. What we don't need is over zealous and capricious large scale lock outs.

If fish stocks are prospering why do we need bag and size limits. I would have thought if stocks were prospering bag and size limits wouldn't be needed? Why do you think there aren't bag and size limits on some species? Maybe because there is less angling pressure on these stocks therefore they are prospering??

I think you have just hit the nail on the head billfisher. Rec anglers do have a significant impact on fish stocks. It becomes less significant with the addition of bag and size limits BUT if stocks could sustain the level of angling pressure being exerted on them at present then bag and size limits wouldn't be needed. Am I wrong?[/quote]Lefty ,you are the only one in a "downward spiral"

Bream ,targeted by "everybody" 23cms...NO LIMIT
but alas..the old "23cms is too small" ...."How many can you eat" drums start beating
sure as your bum stinks....25cms and a LIMIT of 20~50 will come in

As for "tailor" ....STOP COMMERCIAL NETTING...problem solved
OR should we close 50% of the beaches...and make surfrods HALFsize

[seatime]

Maybe the title of this thread should be changed to;

Politics behind the proposed closures

because that's what's really behind it all!

rgds

[fishingjew]

Gazza

OR should we close 50% of the beaches...and make surfrods HALFsize

Dont give em any more ideas

[Gazza]

Hi Fishingjew

BAN THE ALVEY....they catch fish

[mod5]

Hi Fishingjew

BAN THE ALVEY....they catch fish

[fishingjew]

Gazza

LMAO

[billfisher]

Lefty_Green do you know what is happening in the recreational only fishing havens in NSW? After just 2 years of the pros being bought out of Lakes Turous and Macquarie anglers catch rates have been surveyed. Catch rates are up 100 - 300% for popular species and average sizes are well up too. Hardly a sign that amateurs have a adverse effect on fish stocks is it.

I suggest it would be a good idea to make Moreton Bay a rec haven too! The displaced pros could then be allowed back into the underfished Great Barrier Reef or have their licences bought out. The government could also scrap the useless GBRMPA and use the few hundred million saved for worthwhile projects such as fish stocking, artificial reefs, pollution control and envirnomental remediation.

[Burley_Boy]

Lefty, you have some good points and then you come out with some crap, but I applaud your tenacity to post. You will come accross crap here as well as I'm sure you do on the green sites as well, thats people for you!

Not sure if your slot limit question re flathead was a rhetorical question or if your basic level of knowledge is just quite low.
Flatties of larger sizes are the female breeders and are thus returned.
The lower limit makes sense in any fish, why kill an animal for no real gain. A small bream or flattie should be returned to the water to be caught another day. If you pick your strawberries you pick the ripe ones and thats what the slot limit is.

And I still say that the 880,000 rec fishers don't all fill their eskies so quit calculating the estimated impact as all those recs filling their bag each time they go out. Do they imapact my fishing, sure do zooming around my boat when I'm trying to have a quiet fish...

I'd say that if you asked how many rec fishers have achieved a bag limit on a particular species (I've done it twice on GC Snapper recently). You will most likely find that it is only about 5%-10% (wild guess ok) that actually catch enough fish to hit a bag limit - ever!

[jim_farrell]

I've been fishing for 25 years. Only remember bagging out twice.

I don't think i'm a real threat.

[Hornblower]

G'day Fellow Ausfishers and Flathead Fred in particular,

Mate it took me a couple of reads of your initial post to get your point (thick as two short planks, I am ). I initially thought that you were flat out supporting the closures, but on re-reading it I get what you were saying by it (science) is a work in progress and by no means a definitive answer is the closures.

I guess what we are all concerned with is what are the other alternaitves, from a scientific viewpoint, which can be used to counter the argument for closures? You are probably more versed then the rest of us, being in that field, to give us some idea of a viable and effective alternative.

Cheers

[flathead_fred]

This is an abstract of a journal article from the "guru" of fisheries, Dan Pauly, and while it doesn't really apply to a fishery like Moreton Bay, it makes for very interesting reading.

This contribution, which reviews some broad trends in human history and in the history of fishing, argues that sustainability, however defined, rarely if ever occurred as a result of an explicit policy, but as result of our inability to access a major part of exploited stocks. With the development of industrial fishing, and the resulting invasion of the refuges previously provided by distance and depth, our interactions with fisheries resources have come to resemble the wars of extermination that newly arrived hunters conducted 40 000-50 000 years ago in Australia, and 12 000-13 000 years ago against large terrestrial mammals in North America. These broad trends are documented here through a map of change in fish sizes, which displays characteristic declines, first in the nearshore waters of industrialized countries of the Northern Hemisphere, then spread offshore and to the Southern Hemisphere. This geographical extension met its natural limit in the late 1980s, when the catches from newly accessed stocks ceased to compensate for the collapse in areas accessed earlier, hence leading to a gradual decline of global landing. These trends affect developing countries more than the developed world, which have been able to meet the shortfall by increasing imports from developing countries. These trends, however, together with the rapid growth of farming of carnivorous fishes, which consumes other fishes suited for human consumption, have led to serious food security issues. This promotes urgency to the implementation of the remedies traditionally proposed to alleviate overfishing (reduction of overcapacity, enforcement of conservative total allowable catches, etc.), and to the implementation of non-conventional approaches, notably the re-establishment of the refuges (also known as marine reserves), which made possible the apparent sustainability of pre-industrial fisheries.

This concept is a primary driver of MPA implementation, but may be easily taken out of context, as in the case of a relatively healthy fishery such as Moreton Bay. I dont have full access to the full article but this makes the point quite clearly.

Ive been away at Straddie all weekend and this topic is still alive and well, good to see.

Mike

[fishingjew]

THE PARADOX OF CLEAR OBJECTIVES AND ADAPTIVE
MANAGEMENT IN A POLITICAL CONTEXT THAT DEMANDS BOTH
BUT ALLOWS FOR NEITHER

(MPA) management plans and MPA management policies worldwide

[billfisher]

Yes but want has all that got to do with Australia with its low and slow growing population, vast coastline and generally compentent fisheries management. Fisheries departments have made serious efforts to reduce commercial effort and curb unsustainable practices. Also given that we import much of our seafood (70% I think). The need here for marine parks is doubtful and in the case of amateur effort can not be justified.

Locking anglers out of huge areas of the environment is just capricious and overzealous and is a misuse of the precautionary principle.

[Hornblower]

Left_Green re. your quote of: "If fish stocks are prospering why do we need bag and size limits. I would have thought if stocks were prospering bag and size limits wouldn't be needed? Why do you think there aren't bag and size limits on some species? Maybe because there is less angling pressure on these stocks therefore they are prospering??"

Mate, my understanding of the whole bag and size limit is: Re: the Bag Limits: This is a preventative measure with more pressure being placed on our sport by more anglers, the idea is to limit the catch so the sport and the fishing is sustainable - this is a good idea.
Re: the Size Limits: For minimum size, this is so that fish have a chance to go through at least one or two breeding cycles before they are eligible for catch.
For maximum size:Again this is for breeding purposes - flathead are a case in point - and to say that flathead are endangered, is irresponsible as you only have to look at posts on this website or articles in fishing magazines to see that catches and the sizes and the idea or catch and release fishing which is also VERY popular and has no impact on fishing stocks.

The government would do alot better by boosting funding to fisheries officers to catch those "illegal netters" who seem to be of a certain persuasion and take anything of any size and they seem to end up in a certain type of restaurant. That is what is doing a great deal of damage and yet we see nothing happening to these people - they act with impunity, usually after office hours under the cover of night, and you never see a fishing rod in their boat and very big iceboxes. > > > >

Anyway thought the above information might help educate you.

Regards

[lefty_green]

Where do you get your theory that fish stocks are in trouble

Its not a theory. They are!

As for "tailor" ....STOP COMMERCIAL NETTING...problem solved
OR should we close 50% of the beaches...and make surfrods HALFsize

To suggest that rec fishing doesn't contribute to the reduction in tailor numbers (more precisely larger tailor) is just naive.

Not sure if your slot limit question re flathead was a rhetorical question or if your basic level of knowledge is just quite low

Quite low? - an earlier post implied that it is a good idea to remove larger animals from a population because it leaves more food for smaller animals. I suggested that these larger animals contribute significantly to egg production and that flathead is an example of slot limits and that it isn't necessarily a good idea to remove these large animals.

and to say that flathead are endangered, is irresponsible

Didnt actually say this - gave the slot limit of flathead as an example for the egg production example above.


The government would do alot better by boosting funding to fisheries officers to catch those "illegal netters" who seem to be of a certain persuasion

Still not willing to accept that rec fishers have impacts of fish stocks? Blame illegal netters? Take some responsibility for goodness sake.