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.
What effects the sustainability - overfishing from rec fishers?
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.
Bag limits are not set by greenies. In fact, on most MACs in Qld the green contingent is a very small part.
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.
Why is it poor management? Why is it baseless? How do you know? Research has shown that to increase the population of snapper, bag limits may go to 2. Who are you to say that the research is baseless?? How dare you say such crap - do you even know what research has been done? Are you aware of the quality of stock assessment that goes on in QDPI&F? Do you know any of the researchers? Baseless? You talk about baseless - you're whole argument is BASELESS.
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.
That is just the biggest load of rubbish. Any revisions to legislation these days go to a RIS for public comment. Changes are made according to the responses. The fact is if more greens respond then they will get their way. Simple. Rec fishers are the vast minority, so unless you want the green view upheld get off your A*se and respond to RIS's.
I am unclear on where you stand here lefty.
I'm not sure how I can make it clearer after I say 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.
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.
Crap - its based on the best data available. Which is more than you have to disprove that rec fishers aren't contributing to the decline of fish stocks. You have not provided one shred of evidence to back you up yet I'm required to. I dont care what you say - the fact that bag limits have been tightened and MLS have been incresed means that rec fishing contributesd SIGNIFICANTLY to declines in fish numbers!! Read it again.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Redspeckle
