The whole bag limits thing is going to be a "hottie" as the new inshore fin fish regs start to become public knowledge. It begs the question however about what is the purpose of bag limits? Surely it is to protect a species under threat. If a species is not under threat, do we need bag limits?? Is it just a way of "big brother"" infringing on individual rights...personally...not sure!
I kind of like bag limits but really understand the problems they cause, both to individuals and business. I actually live on the GBR and get out to the reef fishing maybe twice a year. It's a big trip, even from here, 2 1/2 hour run, usually 2 boats for safety sake, off at dawn looking forward to a good day. If you happen to hit a patch of trout it can be all over by 8am and the choice is then go home or catch and release. The survival rate for deep caught reef fish is ZERO so do I keep fishing for fun and just kill fish or go home??
At the other end of the scale are those fishos who are reef mad, get out maybe 30 times a year and as such get (if they are good) 240 trout compared to my 16 Hmmm!!
I had a suggestion a while ago by a member for a tags sytem. Buy your tags (say 50 cents or a buck each) and be able to buy (say) 100 a year and you have to tag every fish you catch with a single use tag. This opens up all sorts of dramas with black market selling of tags and the 30 trip a year guys being able to buy 1000,s of tags...........stuffed if I know!
At the end however it should come down to sustainablity NOT bag limits just because the Government does not want rec fishos to feed their friends and neighbors. If fish stocks are fine...then should we have increased bag limits?? It is ludicrous that rec fishers are having increased and restrictive bag limits while commercial fisheries can catch as many as they can of some species...that said the trout issue is one being adressed by reduced catch quotas as well as bag limits...the thing is this is for a fish stock which shows little or no decline in density over a 14 year study program on both fished and unfished reefs.
Before I get slammed with the "good old days" scenario on that statement,Dr Tony Aling...the author of the most comprehensive study of coral trout every undertaken over 14 consecutive years clearly says the trout numbers are still there, it is just the "catchablity" which has changed...in a word, just like sooties in an impoundment, trout "wise up".
This is why, after a long period of bad weather the trout are suddenly "on the bite". It is in effect just that they have started to forget the lessons of fishing pressure.
The "I like to catch and release" fisho is actually more likely to come into the crosshairs of the flouro greens than the meat fisho. Catch and release, as well as live baiting is already banned in Germany (home of the greens).why?
In a nutshell, if your mission in life is to catch and release, what are you really doing? You are deliberately setting out to inflict injury or pain?? (jury is out on that one) and certainly stress on an animal for your own pleasure....see where this is going? If the purpose you fish is to "gather food" for the family that is "justifiable", if it is purely for pleasure at an animals expense then Hmmm!! I had a few Tackle shops, during the campaign, slagging off at meat fishos (who I might add are the majority) about how they were "damaging" the image of fishing. Personally it was all a bit elitist. I eat catch fish, I eat fish, I don't feel guilty. I also let an awful lot go and I have to say, sometimes I get a twinge of consience.
Penny for everyone thoughts on this.
KC
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by SeaHunt
Does anybody think for a minute that with such a valuable resource just sitting there doing absolutely nothing and that's what it's actually doing absolutely nothing there won't be a move down the track to "capitalize" on this resource 
. cheers nq
(should probably say Any fishing is...probably going to be illegal soon)
..