# 'Only 50 years left' for sea fish



## RedPhoenix (Jun 13, 2006)

Unfortunately, due to the change in ownership of this web site and the lack of response by the owners to my requests to remove my email address from all administrative-level notifications and functionality, I have decided to remove my posts on AKFF. Thank you for the great times, the fantastic learning experiences and the many many fish. If you are desperate for the old content of this particular post, it is available below base64 encoded and bzip2 compressed.

Red.

----

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


----------



## Peril (Sep 5, 2005)

Interviewed an Ass. Pro. (abbreviation deliberate) of Marine Ecology about the report on AM this morning. She never mentioned decline at all. Only collapse, repeatedly. Made no comment as to how recoverable the depleted stocks were. When asked what could be done the only answer was marine protected areas.

This is a fisheries management problem. By costraining the total yield, including bycatch and regulating the methods used, there is no reason to believe that these stocks cannot recover. Marine protected areas have been shown to be an extremely inefficient way to manage fisheries as they only result in a redirection of effort. The NSW Gemfish fishery is a case in point. Commercial overfishing saw stocks severely depleted, but increased regulation since has halted the problem.

Interestingly, fisheries management is best done by the Dept Primary Industry (or equivalent) as it is a resource issue. Marine parks tend to be managed by Dept of Environment, who have no responsibility for outcome - it is a process out of control. Unfortunately, recreational interests fall into the Dept of Tourism and Recreation (or equivalent) which finds the whole thing too hard and defers to the other two. We need a Minister for Tourism who is a recreational fisher!


----------



## Dodge (Oct 12, 2005)

Peril said:


> Interestingly, fisheries management is best done by the Dept Primary Industry (or equivalent) as it is a resource issue!


This is the system in Qld and although far from perfect, there are some signs of progress in some areas, but still much to be achieved


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2006)

There is an obvious solution, but it's far from simple. That is to ban commercial fishing, full stop. Sadly, thanks to our capitalist ways, that'll never happen - it doesn't seem to be something we can affect with ballot votes. We can, however, vote with our wallets and preach the philosophy to anyone who will listen - especially our kids, because real change has to start with them.

Any fisho concerned about the future of fish stocks that continues to buy bait like Pilchards and prawns is a hypocrit (albeit unknowingly half the time). Any of us that order prawns, scallops, etc whenever we go to a Thai resteraunt, fish and chip shop, etc, are betraying our own principles. Those of us who buy fish from supermarket shelves should be ashamed. If we were to be much more concientous about what we buy, where it comes from and how it was harvested, the world would be in a much different position today.

It's no good for us to collectively shrug our shoulders in the face of adversity and just say 'what can you do?' The most obvious thing we can do as individuals is to stop feeding the hands that are screwing us - and the rest of the world - over. Money talks, so lets start thinking about how and where we sling it around. With respect to fish stocks, doing that is pretty easy. Don't buy commercially caught fish - especially ones caught with nets. Don't buy bait - collect your own, or otherwise start getting jiggy (pun intended) with plastics.

I'm rather fond of the 'think globally, act locally' concept. I wish it would catch on.


----------



## Zed (Sep 18, 2006)

I've asked this before on other boards, but I'm asking again.

Would you concede to a, say, year long moratorium on fishing?

I think this would benefit more localized areas (nearshore) more than pelagic fisheries. But a year w/o trawling would allow some much needed rebound of the bottom's health.

Maybe a 1:5 ratio of years. This plus better regs and management would be a huge help. I don't think it would take too long to see positive results.

Z


----------



## SharkNett (Feb 20, 2006)

I agree with 5th. If you don't buy it there will be bo reason to catch it.

The only commercial fish products I have bought in more than 10 years have been smoked salmon and trout. They are intruduced and in most states seem to be managed better than natives.

As for a year ban on fishing, you really only have to look at the short term improvements in somewhere like Botany Bay to realise that rec fishing is low impact anyway. Catch rates are up and speciaes like trevally that were once thought to be seasonal are now available in large number all year round.

Of course the greens will never let the truth get in the way of further closures.

Rob.


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2006)

Hammerhead, agreed. We don't need any more restrictions on rec fishing. What we need to do is target the areas that are causing wholesale damage. Netting, dredging, etc etc. If market demand wasn't so high, commercial fish prices would rise and this would likely cause a domino effect of less and less people buying fish. The Chinese proverb: "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime" comes to mind.

The problem, of course, is educating Joe Public that certain fish that they buy are harvested in such a way as to cause untold environmental destruction. And this is where I actually take sides with the greens (despite disagreeing with them on many points for many reasons) because they are the only political party prepared to stand up and say anything about it. Sadly, they are hopelessly disorganized and even worse, allow their reputation to be affected by the extremists among them.

There is a popular consiracy theory thats been floating around at Fishnet for years, which is that the greens want to ban fishing outright. I've spoken to several green candidates about this and it's always news to them. Bob Brown is a trout fisherman to (I'm told) and he also eats meat. As much caution as I have for the greens, I really don't think they are (collectively) the rabid animal libs that they are typically perceived to be. I reckon thats largely a side effect of the name 'green' and the associations people tend to make with it. PETA and groups like that are the ones we need to be worried about. In many ways, the end goal of fishos and greens is precisely the same, which is why the two groups have been able to work together to try and stop dredging in PPB. I don't know too many fishos that aren't in favor of reasonable and effective measures conservation.


----------



## Davey G (Jan 15, 2006)

TAke a look at what New Zealand do with their wild trout resources.

It is quite legal for individuals to catch and keep their own trout whilst fishing in NZ. Obviously bag limits apply, but any recreational anglers can take what they catch.

However, you can only buy 'farmed' trout in restaurants etc. No wild fish can be kept by commercial fishermen for re-sale. Severe penalties apply and 'poachers' have been made examples of.

Result - a world class trout fishery which attracts hundreds of thousands of keen trout anglers from around the world.. Millions of dollars of tourist $$ are injected into the NZ economy from these tourists every year - probably far outweighing the actual $$ value of the trout if it was commercially harvested.

It would be interesting to see what could be done if our natural fish stocks were allowed to flourish. Those who love eating fish would be able to wet a line and catch themselves a feed ( a lot easier) and the recreational fishing / tourism market would also grow due to the increased numbers of fish available in the area.

Sadly, due to greed and governments short -sighted approach, this is unlikely to happen.


----------



## SharkNett (Feb 20, 2006)

Davey,

New Zealand apply that same rule billfish. 
They also banned long lines back in the 80's. Maybe they really are smarter than us?

Rob.


----------



## Peril (Sep 5, 2005)

I believe that there is a place for sustainable commercial fishing. However, we have to take an holistic view of this. Commercial and recreational fishers compete for a resource.

Number one principle should be that the resource is managed as a whole to make sure it is harvested sustainably and without degradation of the habitat.

Number two should be the greater good - this is difficult to ascertain as there will be no agreement upon criteria. However there are some simple examples. The NSW recreational marlin fishery is worth many times the commercial fishery yet the latter can have a severe impact on the former. Doesn't make sense from an economic perspective to allow any commercial fishing of marlin and it is a negligible retail market. Certainly there is a strong argument to keep commercial fishers out of the estuaries on the same grounds. However all of this causes a shift of effort to other species, typically deep sea.

Caution is required in using the referenced report because they have made no judgement on the sustainability of the harvest and have used emotive language. Indeed, it seems to have been compiled by environmental scientists (comment withheld) rather than fisheries experts. A similar report produced in Australia earlier this year and which also got a run in the mainstream press was comprehensively debunked by fisheries scientists.

However, I do agree with comments regarding buying bait. If you don't want commercial operators in the estuaries, don't buy their products. If you don't want them destroying habitat, don't buy their product. On the other hand, the Australian commercial industry is extemely low yield by world standards and generally well managed by state authorities. It is better to support sustainable wild harvest than imports from overstretched fisheries in other countries.

Politically, you'll never shutdown the selling of seafood, and there are very strong equity grounds for saying you shouldn't. The focus has to be on sustainability, habitat protection and the greater good.


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2006)

Hammerhead, again agreed. I reckon the NZ gov is clearly wiser than our own. One example being the current war, which NZ taxpayers won't be paying for for the next 30 years, unlike those of us here in Aus. And yep, their trout fisheries is another fine example of their wisdom.

Peril, I agree that the only way we'll ever see an end to commercial fishing is if stocks dry up completely. All we can do is to act as individuals and whether or not it's bait or fish for the cat or table, many of us would do well to think twice about what we're buying. That way at least we can minimize the damage. If demand slows down, so to should production.

Besides... it's fun to catch bait


----------



## justcrusin (Oct 1, 2006)

HI All,
maybe wrong on this one but if we voted with our wallets and only bought the farmed fish like salmon and barramundi. Would that not take the profits out of trawling. Perhaps we switch the prawns for yabbies I think there are a couple yabbie farms on the north coast of NSW.

A point for the end of trawling is the recovery of lake Mac, I don't have any offical stats but it is not much of problem to paddle out into the lake an catch a decent feed now but a few years ago is was very difficult to catch a decent fish.

Cheers Dave


----------



## Peril (Sep 5, 2005)

A bit of qualification of the report that our lazy media didn't let you know - http://www.fishnitis.com/fishing-board/ ... .from0#new


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2006)

I don't really have any problem with farmed fish (although the practice does need to be improved - particularly for salt water species) but I seem to catch enough to keep myself eating fish. I really don't see a need for someone like myself to be buying it at all. And thank god for that to, because I don't have a swiss bank account :-/


----------



## Cuda (Sep 18, 2006)

I think that closed seasons have a positive impact on fish stocks. An example would be the Pink Snapper fishery in Shark Bay. Not so long ago stocks were at a critical level and the whole fishery was almost wiped out by pro's and "shamateurs" alike. The closed seasons, maximum size, etc have seen the Snapper numbers vastly improved in Shark Bay. Closed seasons around breeding times also have some benefit.
We recreational fishos have put up with steadily reducing bag limits over the years, so why can't the pros? 
It's all supply and demand anyway - the crayfishing industry is a good example. When they are pulling up mega crays, the price slumps, but when they have a bad season the price soars and no-one can afford to buy any crays :twisted: It's bad enough that prawns are going to cost us $50 a kilo this Christmas  
Our northern neighbours don't help things either, sneaking down here and raping our waters. We need more patrol boats to blow the mongrels out of the water :evil: 
I agree that these damn trawlers are a real threat to the marine ecosystem the way they wipe out whole schools of fish etc day after day.
The damn fools are ruining it for themselves and everyone else - ban all pro fishing I say :!: 
There, that's my 2 cents worth :x


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2006)

Ban all pro fishing - I'm with ya there. That said, I'm wondering about the $50 a kilo of prawns comment. Why on earth would anyone be prepared to fork out that kind of dough for a mere kilo of prawns? In my book only a glutton for punishment would even consider it. Hell, I wouldn't even pay $5 a kilo. I wouldn't even pay 5 cents knowing how they've been harvested.

Paying $50 a kilo for prawns truly sends the wrong message I reckon. Its saying to the industry 'we'll pay anything... provide the prawns and we will come at any cost'. That very notion fuels the survival of the commercial fishing industry.

I'll take one foot off the soapbox for a second and respect people's right to do what is within their rights and own limitations, but personally speaking, I couldn't live with myself if I payed $50 per kilo to support these kinds of harvesting practices.


----------



## Russ (Feb 24, 2006)

$50.00 :shock: Holy crap, :lol: looks like pizza for dinner at Xmas time.  hold the anchovies.

 fishing Russ


----------



## Scott (Aug 29, 2005)

5th of November. Get back on the soap box buddy. You are a man after my own heart. I tend to try not to voice (or even have a opinion anymore) now that i am the admin of our little online community. In my misspent youth I use to have a saying which got me into a bit of trouble over the years. It was "save a fish, kill a pro". I think we all need to realise that fish stocks belong to all of us including those generations yet to come. Most fish are far too valuable to be caught just once. Don't get me wrong, I eat fish and don't begrudge anyone taking a feed but we must be sustainable in our fishery practices. This includes all of us not just pros.

I worked in tha tackle trade for many years and used to laugh to myself at theses old fart hypercrites that used to throw comments at me like;

"I remember when I could catch 200 tailor in a day until the pros wiped them out". No wonder the tailor schools are a shadow of themselves with ethics such as these guys have/had. We need to begin to educate the next and upcoming generation of anglers into having the correct attitudes to ensure that all future generations can enjoy this sport that we all love so much.

Catch ya Scott


----------



## justcrusin (Oct 1, 2006)

I Think Scott hit the nail on the head. Education is the real key.

Perhaps the fishery deptartments of each state could do something really proactive and run free 1/2 day courses at local boat ramps for the amatuers on fish conservation and put on a sausage sizzle to attract all the local fisho's. For the pro's the skipper of the vessels should have to complete a course in fish stock preservation / conservation. Wether through TAFE or the uni's or the maritime college. If people even have a brief understanding of how their local enviroment works they might take more care and not keep everything they catch and turn them into fish cakes.

I have always obsevred bag limits and sizes and have never taken more than a couple of fish home for dinner, but have learnt a hell of a lot more in the last couple of months reading the threads of this site. If every fisho could get some of this the world would be a better place. eg how long bream take to grow

opps just fell off my soap box (if you can't tell i believe in free education for all. it will make us a better society)

Cheers Dave


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2006)

I hate to throw a downer at everyone because I too believe in the fact that commercial fishing is a bad thing. But do not believe that recreational fishing is not doing damage, even if we are following the rules. Malacoota inlet in Victoria, which is a famous Estaury Perch, Bream, and Flathead destination is not commercially fished. Yet with the re-born fad of soft plastics the Flat head population down there was absolutley smashed in a period of around 2 years. This was almost soley due to SP's. Fisheries therefore reduced the bag limit to try and reduce the impact that recreational fishing was having. At the end of the day, (as much as I love fishing), it doesnt matter if we ban commercial fishing or not, there is still more recreational fisherman out there than what the ocean was supposed to naturally support. So if us reco's ever have a win and get the big guys banned, I think that all we are doing is delaying the obvious outcome by a couple of hundred years.


----------



## hairymick (Oct 18, 2005)

Hi guys, i too have an opinion on this one but have resisted voicing it for similar reasons to Scott. Stuff it here goes.

I worked on a king prawn trawler out of Iluka between 1974 & 77. I saw the damage we were doing there first hand. An average night working around the 42 fathom line would yield aroung 600 to 800 pounds of prawn.

For every pound of prawns taken, somewhere between 7 and 10 pounds of other marine life was destroyed. I think the latest PC term is 'by catch'

There were about forty such boats working out of Iluka and Yamba at the time and most were going to sea every night - weather permitting. 2&1/2 years of this was all my conscience would allow me.

The mindset of every commercial fisho I have ever met is something like this. " I'LL FISH THIS AREA HAS HARD AS I CAN, FOR AS LONG AS I CAN UNTIL THERE IS NOTHING WORTH FISHING FOR LEFT - THEN I'LL MOVE TO ANOTHER AREA AND f#%@&K IT UP TOO.'

You will never educate this attitude out of the pro crowd IMHO. To a man, every one of them who I have ever had anything to do with has been a classic rednecked, simple-minded thug. who will never change their practices unless forced into it. A common analogy would be " he's not very smart but he can lift heavy things"

Who else but a group of simpletons would go out and deliberately decimate entire schools of heavily roe-ed up fish in their spawining runs.

At least rec Fisho's are learning from our past mistakes and most are now actively working towards much more sustainable practices. The pros just
keep getting better at raping and pillaging our oceans and rivers.



> "save a fish, kill a pro".


Scott mate, I just love that, Can I borrow it. There is a bloke up here who makes custom stickers. If he'll do it, I'll get him to print a few of em and put em on every boat I own.


----------

