Rather than continue this discussion in the other thread, I will answer you in the appropriate forum. Well at least I think it is.
I replied as follows:
Based on the same scientific research as that to justify the marine parks I assume. Ie, none.
If you carefully read what I wrote and put it in context, you will note that my position is not one of "catch and kill". That said, there is a bag limit set by fisheries who are entrusted to do the research and act on that research. If a person wants to kill all the marlin they catch, then legally they can do it, whether you or I agree with that or not. It is no different to big flathead. If you want to make a submission for law changes then go for it.
I think that no sensible person would consider taking 3 marlin home, although (as Anthony says) I'm sure it happens. The fanciful proposition of taking a grand slam each between 3 anglers to get 9 marlin is just that, fanciful. Fisheries knows it as well.
The point I made was that his impact was minimal in the scheme of things and he need not feel guilty about the death of one fish. That is something I stand by. The position is not entirely my own but adopted from that of an infinitely more experienced game fisherman than myself. It may be wrong in your eyes, but it makes sense to me.
In some countries, like Germany, the practice of catch and release is considered inhumane, whereas catch and kill to eat is OK. Whilst I don't agree with that position their argument is not without some basis. What would be thought of you if you put a hook in a bait for a kangaroo to eat because they would put up a good and long fight on 24Kg gear. Some argue there is no difference between that and catching game fish.
You see we all have our opinions. You just happen to think that only yours counts or is the right one.
Cheers
Mitch
(a person who neither purchases nor eats fish)
PS. Perhaps your ire should be directed toward the striped marlin commercial fishery rather than your fellow recreational fisherman.
Here's a short summary of the Striped Marlin Fishery.
http://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?Divis...141&id=1126
"12000 tonnes". If every fish was 100kg on average, that is 120,000 marlin. Think about that number and compare that to the recreational take outlined in the summary.
Seeing that you want to call my form "poor" and "hypocritical", then answer my original reply/question. That is, what is your scientific or other evidence to suggest that the recreational sector has any serious impact of marlin stocks. It doesn't and you know it doesn't. I don't want to kill marlin because I would much rather see them swim off, not because of some notion that I want to preserve the fish stocks.
As someone else said to me, "why the f..k do I want to tag it for? So that some Indonesian can just pull it out when he kills it". That may not be representative of all gamefisherman, but it is for some.
Blue and Black Marlin are taken even if they are not targeted. Its called by-catch. So your statement about "one more than the commercial capture" is just plain wrong.
You said "Taking a fish because it has died, and could not be revived is not my issue here". Really? So what does "Recreational fisherman using J hooks, incorrect tackle, and plainly taking their 3 marlin quota per day have quite an impact on Marlin stocks" mean then? Aren't you suggesting that he would have been doing the wrong thing by using J hooks? Or that you have an issue with him taking Marlin? If that is the case, who are you to judge, and again, on what scientific basis do you rely on?
You need to get a grip on the fact that taking Marlin is legal. I nor anybody else needs to justify the taking of one. The fact that I described his capture as insignificant in comparison to the commercial sector is clearly unnecessary except to the extent to address his feelings of remorse in not being able to revive the fish. I didn't need to justify it. You just plucked the sentence in my post and used it to vilify me for a position I clearly did not express. Maybe I just should of said "bad luck mate, shit happens"
If he just kept it because he wanted to, then the commercial take would not even have been mentioned. That's his prerogative, not ours.
Now of course it is your personal opinion that we are talking about. Just point out to me how you could possibly compare the recreational take to the commercial take for any billfish. There is a natural sustainable level. There is no doubt about that. If there was no commercial take whatsoever, then the recreational fishery could be all catch and kill with absolutely minimal impact on stock levels. The problem lies elsewhere but that is an argument for another thread.
You and I don't disagree on whether to release them or not, its just your personal jibe that I take issue with and the fact that you want to shove your opinion down the throat of every other game fisherman.
