# Tilapia - pride of place beside the mullet and whiting



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

I see these introduced fish in plague proportions in every waterway around here and yet they are declared noxious pest species (in QLD) with $250k fine for possession unless you immediately bury them above the high water mark when reaching land.

This was taken in Penrith yesterday


----------



## bunsen (Jan 2, 2009)

Yep, typical.


----------



## dru (Dec 13, 2008)

Not sure I get the issue unless they are being brought into Australia live. Tilapia are a major commercial species all around the world. Dead ones on ice are no threat and reputed to be good eating. Sitting in between mullet and whiting does nothing one way or another for the feral fish.

Personally I wouldnt eat any fish imported from SE asia, different issue though.

What am I missing?


----------



## bunsen (Jan 2, 2009)

Without wanting to speak for BB, I guess he is saying it's pretty ironic that we are importing a fish to eat that we have a feral population of, but arent using to any commercial end.


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

bunsen said:


> Without wanting to speak for BB, I guess he is saying it's pretty ironic that we are importing a fish to eat that we have a feral population of, but arent using to any commercial end.


That's my exactly my point although I do understand the legislation is there to try prevent their spread to other areas. I don't know how widely they have spread throughout the state but know that the live in every puddle of water possible. They get wiped out in black water events but are back in their thousands a few weeks later.

I see 100 times more tilapia in my day to day work activities than I see cane toads and yet we are still trying to stop the incursion of cane toads into other areas.

I don't know the answer but making them fair game for commercial fishers couldn't hurt surely.


----------



## dru (Dec 13, 2008)

With you. Would the commercial guys actually target them though? I thought that most tilapia commercial stocks was through fish farms?


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

Don't know if they would target them when retail price is $8/kg, may not be competitive with imports anyway.


----------



## scater (Nov 24, 2007)

My concern is that sale of tilapia will legitimise it as a table fish, with the possible consequence that unscrupulous people will spread their reach so as to have them available.


----------



## cam07 (Sep 12, 2008)

They are quite a good table fish


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

There's a guy in the local paper today spruiking the eating qualities of the Saratoga too.


----------



## anselmo (Aug 26, 2008)

Barrabundy said:


> There's a guy in the local paper today spruiking the eating qualities of the Saratoga too.


That's not on










Saratoga should never ever be eaten, they are just too susceptible to overfishing given their requirement for clean water, limited population and low fecundity (females are mouth brooders and only produce 50-100 eggs per breeding cycle from memory) EDIT: i'm partially correct anyway - see http://www.nativefish.asn.au/saratoga.html

Its IUCN Red List status is Lower Risk/near threatened (LT/nt) [2]

Compare this to the average 200-300,000 eggs produced by usual range of suspects


----------



## anselmo (Aug 26, 2008)

dru said:


> With you. Would the commercial guys actually target them though? I thought that most tilapia commercial stocks was through fish farms?


I've eaten both wild and farmed tilapia

I have to say farmed tilapia a vastly superior to any other farmed fish and almost as good as wild other fish
Wild tilapia are superior to farmed tilapia but not by much

I'd eat tilapia in preference to just about anything


----------



## yaker (Aug 29, 2005)

.


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

yaker said:


> scater said:
> 
> 
> > My concern is that sale of tilapia will legitimise it as a table fish, with the possible consequence that unscrupulous people will spread their reach so as to have them available.
> ...


Yep, didn't stop them getting here, can't we how it will stop their spread now that they are here.


----------



## anselmo (Aug 26, 2008)

Barrabundy said:


> yaker said:
> 
> 
> > scater said:
> ...


They came to Oz as aquarium fish originally


----------



## AJD (Jul 10, 2007)

I used to target them in waterways around Brisbane where you could catch 20 or 30 big ones in a session easy. Had to dig a bloody big hole to bury them in every time. Couldn't put the, back because they were a noxious fish. Couldn't use them at all because of the fines if caught with them in your possession and I couldn't resist cleaning them out of a waterway to give the local fish a chance.

I understand the intent of the law but it's pretty bloody pointless if there are schools of these things up and down the QLD coast. Some of the schools I saw around Brissy were damn thick. 100's of 30 to 40cm fish. Shame they can't be used for good.


----------



## goanywhere (Feb 22, 2011)

We have a law regarding carp that they must not be returned to the water if caught, but you are allowed to eat them (not going there!). Why can't Tilapia be regarded the same way? If they are such a good table fish, and are around in great numbers surely they should be exploited to the full for either commercial or recreational fishing, with the same law not to be returned if caught.

By not being allowed to eat them it makes no difference to the law that they cannot be returned to the water. Eat - bury - either way they're dead and not going back in the water. ????????

They must be a northern area species because I haven't heard of them in SA.


----------



## Dodge (Oct 12, 2005)

goanywhere said:


> By not being allowed to eat them it makes no difference to the law that they cannot be returned to the water. Eat - bury - either way they're dead and not going back in the water. ????????


The bury rule applies to them because they are mouth breeders, and a frame if left around after cleaning still has potential to have active young fish in the mouth for a long while after.

Apparently good eating, and a shame every angler could not be relied on to do the right thing after cleaning, and benefit by both a feed with later proper disposal of the frame as required at present.


----------



## goanywhere (Feb 22, 2011)

Dodge said:


> goanywhere said:
> 
> 
> > By not being allowed to eat them it makes no difference to the law that they cannot be returned to the water. Eat - bury - either way they're dead and not going back in the water. ????????
> ...


Mmm. I guess having a law that says you can keep the good bits but must properly dispose of the rest makes it a bit complex for some people. Still, if you're in a kayak, and have caught some of these fish it can become a bit of an exercise to find somewhere to bury them if you are in a metro area. Either way, is that really going to stop the things from breeding up? We're not real good at preventative measures for ferral anything in this country. I don't know why they think that a measure like that will work.


----------

