Sorry steve, I had a weak moment.
I don't know why he keeps getting up off the floor.
Sorry steve, I had a weak moment.
I don't know why he keeps getting up off the floor.
Originally Posted by Jeremy
You're right of course Jeremy, about the harvest being more then the boat strikes, but the point is, there are far fewer of our indigenous brethren hunting now then there were before white man came here. Far less of them eating the traditional way as well. This equals, less being harvested. The newer methods of carrying on the hunt, with the assistance of modern boats etc really doesn't have that much more of an impact whehn you take into consideration the fact that there are far less of the idigenous people living the traditional way of life. The other point is that they can still only eat sooo much. It is now ilegal to trade in turtle shell etc in this state.
The point is though, that the bloody greenies aren't happy until they have stuffed up everyones way of life. It they it the way it is, dugong hunting will probably die a natural death in the next thirty years anyway. Why try to hurry it, it is the same in my book as our farming cattle for meat production.
Cheers
Horny
Live every day as if it's your last - for one day you're sure to be right!
Interesting. A rec fisher that doesn't want to see the end of commercial netting in Australia or Moreton Bay? I am amazed that when there is talk of spatial closures, rec fishers jump into bed with commercial fishers to provide a very vocal objection. However, rec fishers are quick to blame commercial fishers for the decline in fishing throughout Queensland and especially Moreton Bay.[/quote]
Lefty...who says the fishing has declined in the Bay..most people I know seem to think it has improved..I know the areas where I fish, we have had the best winter fishing for a while..and that is without rainfall to flush out the estauries and the water not being as cold as we usually want it.
Everything you say is heresay, not true or spun
Is that right flick? I dont think you have produced anything, not a shred of evidence to back you up. I have posted a document, the best evidence available, but you shot it down. Now you produce something that refutes my claims and i will shut up. Simple. You know the saying - people in glass houses....
I don't know why he keeps getting up off the floor Just pig-headed I suppose
As for the comment about fish stocks - well you are joking aren't you? You're saying the fishing is as good now as it was 50 years ago? 20 years ago?
Lefty-Green,
I'm not old enough to comment on the 50 years ago quip, but unless you are then you'd better keep your mouth shut.
As for 20 years ago, I would put my hand up to say YES. Certainly in the case of snapper, I have had much more success now than 20 years ago.
Whether that's due to:
a. the improved water quality (pollution is much reduced in comparison to the virtually unregulated dumping that occurred 20-30 years ago)
b. the cessation of coral dredging in the bay, or
c. the increased size limit / decreased bag limit, or most likely
d. all the above.
I havent noticed any decline in the winter whiting stocks, I can go out and catch a feed of them just about any time I want (in Winter of course).
I have noticed a bit of a decline in Bream (and I would like to hear if anyone else feels the same) and I suspect that a change in size limit would do the Bream stocks some good.
Now before you go twisting that around LG, I havent said that they are overfished, there may be a multitude of causes, in fact it may just be that I'm out of luck with the Bream and that stocks are fine (I WOULD like to see some research done on that) all I have said is that Bream stocks would benefit from a size limit increase. That is MANAGE the issue.
The key point is that MANAGEMENT strategies CAN EASILY ensure biodivesity and sustainability with out closing us Queenslanders out of OUR OWN bay.
Research into better ways to minimise impact (for example BUT NOT LIMITED TO reducing by-catch from netters) should continue. Further reduction in pollution will be welcomed. Improved water supply in SE Qld which does not include damming and sucking every last drop out of every river we can find will be welcome. the reduced emmision standards for OB motors are welcome.
There are a host of things that can and should be done to protect our environment, and I and many rec fishers support those things.
Closures are NOT the answer.
Closures are a cop out for those who are not prepared to put the effort in to manage the issue.
Closures are a Luddite solution for a vocal minority of idealogues who are obviously prepared to twist and spin any emotive issue (eg dugongs) and prepared to defame anyone who doesnt agree with them in order to to con the good-hearted majority who are happy to ascede to what appears at first to be a morale cause but don't have the time or inclination to scratch the surface of the veneer of argument put.
I am proud to say that I care for the bay, I have an environmental conscience and I take active steps to minimise my impact and even to clean up after others who are not as considerate as I. I have no qualms in saying that those who abuse the size/bag limits should receive the appropriate punishments. I agree with preservation and conservation but not as an ends rather as a means to ensure we can CONTINUE to enjoy the environment.
It is for those reasons that I whole-heartedly oppose the Closures.
There may be others on this site who have slight variations on my opinions, but I would venture to say that the vast majority of people on this site agree with me, when I say we want to care for and preserve our environment so that we can interact and enjoy it, not so it can be locked away.
So the end result is Lefty-Green, you can push your barrow full of emotive and misleading BS some where else.
the best evidence available
[/quote]
Conservationists want to make the QLD coastline a marine park from border to border, with a minimum of 20-30% no take zones.
I'm sorry, but your best evidence is rubbish, as I said, it is based on estimates and guesswork. It even states that in the report.
You ask me what data I have produced. What data do I need to produce. I am not proposing changes. You are, therefor you need evidence to back up the proposals.
If i produced evidence that I caught more fish this week as against the corresponding week 10 years ago, does that mean that there are more fish now, or that I am now taking to much. That is as solid as anything you have produced. It is all in how the reader interprets it.
The studies should not be about whether we need closures, It should be how many fish are there, and are we taking to many. There is no study that says we take an unhealthy percentage.
Finally, another piece of your spin,
"As for the comment about fish stocks - well you are joking aren't you? You're saying the fishing is as good now as it was 50 years ago? 20 years ago? "
Fish stocks and how good fishing was fifty years ago are separate issues.
Can you tell me how many bream there were in QLD waters fifty years ago? Can you tell me how many rec fishos took fifty years ago? The same for today, How many bream in QLD today, and how many do we take.
You cannot answer any of those questions, so neither can you tell me the difference in populations across fifty years.
Here is a job for you.
Go to your local tackle store and do a survey of all rec fishoes that go in there. Ask them how long they have been fishing for, and how often they fish. Then ask all that were fishing twenty years ago or more how much catch and release they practiced back then, and how much they practice now.
20-30% closures of the entire QLD coastline with not one study or shred of evidence that can state that we take an unhealthy amount for the fishery to be sustainable.
As i've said before, show me an accurate report that tells me what percentage we harvest. Only then should decisions be made on what action to take.
Jim
Closures are a Luddite solution for a vocal minority of idealogues who are obviously prepared to twist and spin any emotive issue (eg dugongs) and prepared to defame anyone who doesnt agree with them in order to to con the good-hearted majority who are happy to ascede to what appears at first to be a morale cause but don't have the time or inclination to scratch the surface of the veneer of argument put.
[/quote]
Luvinit, very well said.
I am not proposing changes. You are
Closures are NOT the answer
I DO NOT advocate closures!! Read it again for goodness sake. However, I would if I have sufficient scientific proof - eg spawning temporal closures on the reef, spatial closures for spawning tailor. Are these ok with you blokes or would you prefer to see these gone as well?
I'm not old enough to comment on the 50 years ago quip, but unless you are then you'd better keep your mouth shut.
As for 20 years ago, I would put my hand up to say YES. Certainly in the case of snapper, I have had much more success now than 20 years ago.
Whether that's due to:
a. the improved water quality (pollution is much reduced in comparison to the virtually unregulated dumping that occurred 20-30 years ago)
b. the cessation of coral dredging in the bay, or
c. the increased size limit / decreased bag limit, or most likely
d. all the above.
So you say that fish stocks are the same or better than 20 years ago? Why do we need to remove trawlers and netters from the Bay?
Closures are a Luddite solution for a vocal minority of idealogues
They want change, you dont. Doesn't that make you the luddite?
Conservationists want to make the QLD coastline a marine park from border to border, with a minimum of 20-30% no take zones.
I'm sorry, but your best evidence is rubbish, as I said, it is based on estimates and guesswork. It even states that in the report.
You ask me what data I have produced. What data do I need to produce. I am not proposing changes. You are, therefor you need evidence to back up the proposals.
If i produced evidence that I caught more fish this week as against the corresponding week 10 years ago, does that mean that there are more fish now, or that I am now taking to much. That is as solid as anything you have produced. It is all in how the reader interprets it.
The studies should not be about whether we need closures, It should be how many fish are there, and are we taking to many. There is no study that says we take an unhealthy percentage.
Finally, another piece of your spin,
"As for the comment about fish stocks - well you are joking aren't you? You're saying the fishing is as good now as it was 50 years ago? 20 years ago? "
Fish stocks and how good fishing was fifty years ago are separate issues.
Can you tell me how many bream there were in QLD waters fifty years ago? Can you tell me how many rec fishos took fifty years ago? The same for today, How many bream in QLD today, and how many do we take.
You cannot answer any of those questions, so neither can you tell me the difference in populations across fifty years.
Here is a job for you.
Go to your local tackle store and do a survey of all rec fishoes that go in there. Ask them how long they have been fishing for, and how often they fish. Then ask all that were fishing twenty years ago or more how much catch and release they practiced back then, and how much they practice now.
20-30% closures of the entire QLD coastline with not one study or shred of evidence that can state that we take an unhealthy amount for the fishery to be sustainable.
As i've said before, show me an accurate report that tells me what percentage we harvest. Only then should decisions be made on what action to take.
Jim[/quote]
A case in point:
Went out yesterday at 1100, I was determined to catch something on a SP, never caught anything on them the couple of times I've tried.
Within 30 mins I'd caught 2 flatties, 1 legal, 1 not, both released, dropped 1 and even had 1 chasing a Jackal fish thingy. 4 dugong cruised right past me, and if it wasn't for the snot weed I'd have stayed. I mucked around for another 1 hr at a couple of other spots, did no good and came home.
Now, I've fished in the bay on and off since 1966, at 3 yrs old.
And I reckon that effort compares pretty favorably with years ago.
Also done well with snapper each time out (on bait) Nth of Pt Lookout.
Winter whiting are as good as I can remember, crabs are good, macks back after netting stopped. Some species need attention, that's where the detailed studies are needed, but don't exist.
Not that much has changed, 20,30,40 yrs ago, if you put in the effort, you were rewarded, same today. There was plenty of fishers who couldn't catch fish 30 yrs agoThere's so much boat traffic on weekends it's a wonder anyone catches fish.
regards
Steve.
Not that much has changed, 20,30,40 yrs ago, if you put in the effort, you were rewarded, same today.
Ok steve i'll tell you what. We'll go fishing tomorrow - lets say we go to Mud Island to catch a snapper.
But when we get there we'll leave the 4.55m Quintrex Hornett sitting on it's Redco trailer, with its 90hp 4-stroke electric start, electric trim and tilt Yamaha unstarted. Instead we'll take my grandfathers 16ft wooden clinker row boat, made from wood. We'll leave the $1000 GPS and $1000 colour sounder in the car as well (but we'll have to take pop so he can show us the landmarks). We'll also leave the Loomis spin rods matched with the shimano stella's filled with the 4lb fireline. Same goes for the flourocarbon leader (whats that pop asks). We'll also leave the scented Squidgies at home, with their chemically sharpened, fine-guage hooks. Instead we'll take pop's tackle sack containing his home-made hand spools (turned on his lathe) filled with cat-gut fishing line (equivalent to about 80lb mono). But pop was fairly progressive so there might be a few Mustad hooks that he imported himself if we're lucky??
We better get there early because we'll have to go and dig some worms ourselves or cast net some hardy heads.
I wonder how many snapper we'd catch with that sort of gear?
That sort of gear was used to catch cricket score cathes of bream and the like 50 years ago.
It is ridiculous to say that fish stocks are better than they were. You need to standardise the effort. I have done so in the above example. Fisheries managers call this effort creep. Although the number of fishers may not change (and I think we'll all have to agree that it has increased substantially) the methods they use to catch the fish have made that effort more efficient.
Not that much has changed You really believe this?
What you have just said is the exact reason why you cop flack lefty.
My old mans 18 ft cruise craft has not changed fishing wise since he bought it in 1978. That makes it 28 years old. No sounder. No gps. No braid no flurocarbon. Handlines with 50lb mono. All marks are from compass bearings and experience. His catch rate is as good this winter as it was 30 years ago. That is a fact and not something I have made up for the fun of it. The only thing that has changed, is he throws a lot back.
My boat has gps, sounder blah blah blah and he would still out fish me. Partly because I fish lighter gear and get bricked, and partly because he relies on his wisdom and not electronics.
So once again, how can you prove fisheries aren't as plentiful as 30-50 years ago, and prove recs take more now than once did. I know I catch about the same on average but release a hell of a lot more.
As far as cricket scores go, some blokes still chase them. Try a search in estuary under long weekend 19th sept. That bloke copped an absolute hiding from 90% of ausfishers. Most of us could go and keep a truck load of bream, but don't. PM nugget about how many bream were seen by divers in the seaway a month ago. He was talking schools by the hundreds.
Proof that recs take a damaging percentage of any fishery. I am still waiting for your evidence.
Oh and back to the topic 20-30% no take zones along the whole coastline. You are either for or against it. Which is it?
Jim
yes I do, my ability to catch a fish when I plan to hasn't changed much. But that's only from my experiences, which are fairly broad.
regards
Steve.
As you know I cannot produce numbers to prove or disprove anything. However, what I can do is say that the recreational bag limit for snapper has gone from 30 to 5 and most probably will go to 2, while the size limit has increased. That tells me that there's a little problem there. Further, the bag limit for tailor has gone from "catch what you want, sugar bags full" to 20. The total catch of both of these species is significantly influenced by rec fishers. Is that evidence enough - probably not for you Jim, but thats the best I can do.
Oh and back to the topic 20-30% no take zones along the whole coastline. You are either for or against it. Which is it?
As I have said on numerous occassions I am for closures if they are to protect spawning areas like the temporal reef closures or the spatial closure on Fraser for tailor. I am totally against closures that exclude fishers (commercial or rec) for no good reason.
Lefty, no it doesn't mean there is a little problem there. It means that fisheries decided that those numbers were probably unnecessary and may in the future effect sustainability.As you know I cannot produce numbers to prove or disprove anything. However, what I can do is say that the recreational bag limit for snapper has gone from 30 to 5 and most probably will go to 2, while the size limit has increased. That tells me that there's a little problem there. .
Most recs don't have an issue with fisheries management of bag limits and sizes. Some are good, some are questionable, but most are workable.
Problems arise when extreme conservationists, greenies and activists get involved in something they know very little about. They have a meeting, decide on an agenda, act on it, then once they achieve their goal, someone else is left to deal with an unbalance that they created. They end up doing more damage than good. I hate to get off topic, but the snowy mountains is a perfect example of this. Even the rangers agree the greenies have screwed it up. To drop snapper to 2 on baseless grounds will only put unnecessary pressure on other fisheries. Do you think that I will put $100 of fuel in my boat and stop fishing once I have caught 2 snapper. This is a perfect example of poor management.
The latest agenda is 20-30% closures of the whole Qld coastline. No research, no studies, no thought as to possible outcomes, just a group of people who think they, ...... hell, I don't know what they think. They get off on forcing change on people they perceive as being ungreen, possibly a power trip. This is a very dangerous way of managing anything.
I am unclear on where you stand here lefty.
1. What is your view on the GNS closures.
2. Do you think there are grounds for closures in the bay, if so, to what areas and effecting what species.
3. Do you agree with the closures in the GSS and on what grounds.
4. Do you agree with the GBRMP closures, and on what grounds.
5. What are your views on 20-30 % closures of the entire QLD coastline.
6. What species of fish in QLD do you believe is under threat or in decline due to rec fishing.
Finally, to answer your question, no it is not evidence that a fishery was under threat. It is evidence that somebody thought those numbers were unsustainable. Until someone says there are X number of tailor and we take X number, there is no evidence, only guess work, and that is based on personal opinions not definite science.
Jim
Dear Lefty Green,
Because the bag limit on snapper has gone doesn't necessarily mean there is a problem, that is an assumption you are making to back up your argument. I would suggest that it is more likely a management strategy to ensure that there isn't a problem in the future with all the southerners coming up here for the way of life and increase in the number of boats etc in our part of the world.
I'm not talking snapper here, but I would say my fishing success rate has possibly risen a little since I started out 30 years ago.
Yes, I have a depth sounder - which I use for navigating my way through sandbanks etc, and I still mainly rely on my eyesight for the best fishing spots; and
Yes I do have a GPS, but I use this for the same reason as the sounder.
Now I am not an outside fishermen, only the every day garden variety estuary type. But I can tell you for sure what will have a ditremental impact on our fishing stocks etc, and that is those illegal netters who take everything out of the system, not us responsible recreational anglers and not even the pros, but those stinky little swine who net illegally.
Now that being said, closures are not going to effect them in any way whatsoever except possible to make it easier for them to get away with their nefarious activities because there will be less of us out there reporting their behaviour. If they are doing something illegal for which they are liable to lose their boat etc now, do you think that further closures will really stop from doing it in the future.
I don't mean this as a personal attack, only to try to open your thoughts up to the fact that there COULD be more to all this.
Cheers
Horny
Live every day as if it's your last - for one day you're sure to be right!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote