fishmaniac

Bad luck on saturday mate. We finally were able to get out but it looked like we missed the action by a few days. We didn't get anything decent either. I had a good take on the cube near sunset and before I got too excited a big mako was leaping out the back of the boat. Was a bit of fun for 10mins before my trace wore through. Good luck tomorrow!

If you want something light weight which is designed to match that reel I would go a PE4 jickstick. I have a 60b saltiga and the rod only weighs 200g and will load right up at about 5kg of drag, yet it can take up to 10kg comfortably. The saltiga rods are more than 300, so maybe have a look at the monster mesh from daiwa or an equivalanet from shimano in that price range.

The wharf has been gone for several months now. Everyone is pretty annoyed about the amount of time it is taking to install a new wharf. Last time I asked (about two or three months ago) they said a new one would be installed by around september. Most of the locals doubt that will be the case. A bit of a joke considering you have to pay national parks to use the ramp and there are no lights, an unsealed carpark and now, no wharf!!!

The carbon tax is a joke. If every cent collected from this tax was put directly towards the construction and implementation of renewable energy sources I would support it. The fact is, this is not the case. So the very need for this tax (to combat climate change) is not being met hence rendering it a cop-out

Awesome fish mate. Top effort!!! I think that PB may stand for quite some time!!!

Thanks mate, will look forward to your next post

Awesome news!!!! Do you know if they are far from browns? If they are not too far it could be in range of my boat for a hit tommorrow

Are you talking about a 'wind on' leader or a 'shock leader'. If you are tying 5-15m of 80lb mono onto say, 50lb braid, i would probably see that as a 'shock leader'. In which case I would be using the slim beauty or PR knot. The slim beauty is good because it can be tied just with your hands. Others may suggest the albright, but from personal experience it is good for a while, but with extended use I have found it fails.

Local recreational fishermen having to pay a feee to fish and potentially locked out of 40% of OUR Australian coastline. 18000 Tonnes of fish taken from Australian waters mainly to be exported to other countries. Quotes, jobs? Who cares seriously. Get lost and fish out your own bloody oceans. Either that or the government may as well abolish the recreational fees and marine parks.

No worries mate, I was not having a go or trying to force a point in my previous post. I was just adressing a comment you made regarding some reasons behind why some perople oppose the science of marine parks. You had asked if Trapper Tom could give some reasons against the science and I thought i'd take that upon myself to give some reasons. With respect to forming alliances, I could not agree with you more. I think one of the difficulties with recreational fishermen is that we are currently the 'enemy' of many green groups. And in saying that, I'm not try to point the finger at the Greens, because the majority of recreational fishermen see the Greens as their enemy! As you said, perhaps we need to exercise less animosity towards green groups and instead, offer them the opportunity to see the actions of the recreational fishing community.

Hrgh, I can understand where you are coming from with respect to people making unsubstantiated claims (such as the science of marine parks is bogus). Although I have not studied marine biology, as a keen fisherman I have made a point of learning a bit about the marine biosphere. After have a lengthy discussion with a marine biologist regarding this topic, I am confident to say that the science used to justify the imposition of marine parks is not entirely 'bogus', but at the same time it is not relevent to the recreational fishing community. The major principles that marine parks stand for are preserving the natural environment and reducing the number of fish taken from a given area. The vast majority of marine park studies have focused on reef ecosystems and the marine biologists examine the behaviour and monitor the population size of reef inhabitants. In theory, by protecting a given portion of reef, higher fish populations shall result in the protected area which in turn creates a larger breeding stock which will inherently benefit fisheries in the surrounding regions. In theory this sounds great, but here lies the major flaw with respect to the recreational fishermen. The main species that recreational fishermen target are arguable: - Snapper - Kingfish - Jewfish - Australian Salmon - Flathead These species are migratory and do not form local colonies in a given reef. In one week the flathead are in 40m, the next they are in 60m. The kings are swarming at the colours one week and a few weeks later they are up at Coffs Harbour our out at the 12 mile. The marine parks will benefit local reef inhabitants the most. Things like wrass, rock cod etc which are not under any pressure from the recreational fishing fleet. The main recreational species that should be protected cannot be effectively managed by marine parks! It is as simple as that! With respect to habitat destruction - apart from a few lost hooks and sinkers, there is very little to no habitat destruction from recreational fishermen. Even pulling hard on an anchor is at worst going to move one or two rocks!!! I would much rather see better collection of stormwater runoff to manage pollutants entering our waterways prior to worrying about small quanitities of terminal tackle. The only argument that I saw reason in was that the breeding cycle of fish may be interupted if fish are under stress from catch and release practices. I did point out that the fish will go off the bite and wisen up, but nonetheless I can see the importance of this from a logical perspective. Hence, I would be accepting of a monthly closure on a particular species during breeding season. It seems the recreational fisherman are a mis-understood bunch. We are placed in the same category as those who rape and pillage the oceans and leave a wake of destruction behind them. This marine biologist asked if I keep to my bag limits. I laughed in their face, as the vast majority of very keen fishermen, who catch lots of fish only take a couple for their immediate needs. We all pay taxes, we all share the environment. With education, better management, better enforcement, and conducting scientific research that is relevant to recreational fishermen (as opposed to what the greenies like to look at when they dive) we will not need lockouts and marine sancturies that ban us from entering.

It is pathetic that the proposals for new marine parks make the news in the process of effectively big-noting the govenrmnet for their efforts in conservation. Yet the recent approval by the federal labour/green government to allow a foreign vessel to take 18000 Tonnes of baitfish has slipped under the radar. I object to marine parks for recreational fishermen based on science and principle. I understand that a large commercial vessel will have a significant impact on an ecosystem but a father and son getting out to catch a few reefies every few weeks is certainly sustainable. hrgh, i don't know if you are taking the piss with your sweeping comment that east coast fishermen don't seem to think marine parks were thought up by intellectual idiots which quotes an article from the abc (which is no doubt the most pro-labour news reporter in the country)!!!! Polical preference aside, it is extremely easy to write an article to favour a particular point of view. I would like to see how many people approve of lockouts from their favourite spots while the same government is simultaneously giving the green light to foreign vessels - certainly the minority from my conversations with many other anglers and online fishing forum discussions. 1) I would support such sanctuaries if there was no goverment hypocrisy in policy making 2) If there was sound scientific evidence to suggest that lockouts of RECREATIONAL fishermen were beneficial to the environment. One of my main concerns is that governments are not differentiating enough between the recreational fishermen and the commercial fishermen with respect to the policy making. I had a discussion with a recent marine biologist graduate regarding marine parks in reference to recreational fishermen. I can can tell you, i tore this person to shreds. They had noithing - just about the only thing i could give them credit for was the imposition of a sancturay in a known (and proven) breeding grounds during spawning season. So, like in South Australia perhaps a closed season in a given area for a species would be practical? This is just about the only legitimate reason for a marine park we found from our lengthy discussion. But hey, who cares about logic, science or what people want. As long as we keep the loudest polical groups quiet and improve our political image (and make money in the process) our government can just do whatever the hell they want (liberal, labour, nationals, greens etc.. they are all the same)

Today Landline had a segment on the farming of mulloway which I was keen to watch. However, during the program an update of the latest political desicions and proposals for primary industries caught my attention. A Lithuanian supertrawler that is 142m in length is set to commence operations in about 2 months (August). It will be based in Devonport, Tasmania. The vessel will be operating anywhere between NSW, around Tasmania and through to Western Australia. The boat has been granted an 18000 Tonne quota for Jack Mackeral and Red Bait to be shipped to Asia and Africa. It just needs to gain an Australian registration before it can get stuck into our fish stocks (which appears only to be a matter of paper work). To say I am furious is an understatement!!!! These are some of the favourite baits of the bluefin tuna. Such a massive number of bait fish being taken has to have an impact on the ecosystem. And how many other species are going to be killed as bycatch!!! On one part of the program, you have an Aussie farmer being restricted by layers of government red tape to get his sustainable fish farm up and running and at the same time the same government is giving the green light to mass slaughters within our waters. Where are the GREENS???? And the Government???? Too busy pestering our local fleets and locking out recreational fishermen - jeez we just demolish the local ecosystems and take everything we can don't we??!?!?

Nice work on a lovely fish mate! I heard your screams of joy (I can see myself in the background of your pic ) It was a little slow, I managed one at 48cm and 6 pannies. Hopefully it will fire up shortly

Although the half life of cesium is 30 years in the environment, its biological half life is only 70 days. So the effects of the bioaccumulation of radioactive cesium in apex predators is relatively low when you consider this fact. As cesium undergoes radioactive decay it becomes barium (no need to go into the details of this unless asked for). Barium is a heavy metal that will bioaccumulate and is certainly not good for you. This is arguably of greater concern. One thing to keep in mind is that these levels of radiation are still well within tolerable levels as outlined by the US and Japanese markets. We are constantly exposed to radiation at an increasing rate in our daily lives from basically anything that is electronic. Of course the type of radiation we are exposed to and the intensity is different between cesium and such electronic sources.

Get them into some protein shakes to supplement their protein intake

The southern stocks of tuna which are not swimming in contaminated waters would be fine mate. It is a shame that yet another nuclear catastrophy was the result of human error. Scientists are aware of the potential threats when things go wrong yet the government chooses to go and build their reactor plant on the pacific ring of fire in an area which could be hit by a tsunami. Usual government crap of saving costs. If they spent more money by either designing the plant to withstand greater lateral forces OR build the thing on higher ground and payed the extra to run some piping up to the plant this would not have happened. P.S. Groper, the half life of cesium is around 30 years so we'll all be waiting along time if we need to wait for things to return to their original levels

Yea, you are more likely to be thrown overboard from a 13ft tinnie as opposed to a 40ft riv. Explain to me how this is the case when you are in a 5m boat that's very old with poor hull design as opposed to a new boat just under 4.8m which would be more stable? So in replying to my previous comment and offering a counter argument you have failed to address the ONE issue i have with this law - that is the 4.8m figure!!!!!! Yea laws are laws.... I would hate to see what the world would be like if everyone took that viewpoint.... It would be good to actually put some thought into the facts being presented - because if in fact laws should be changed for the better and enough people support change, it will likely occur. I'm not arguing this law should be totally abolished, I believe that it currently stands to be improved for the reasons I have described previously. Some areas for thought include: - Reconsider the circumstances under which lifejackets are compulsory with reference to boat length (another member had a good idea referring to the flotation class of the boat) - Reconsider whether its necessary to wear the jacket when not underway - Make it compulsory to have auto-inflatable jackets for the case of being unconcious (for someone who is a strong swimmer, this would probably be the only time a lifejacket is of benefit) - Government to subsidise auto inflatable vests to a more affordable price

Mate, you could die everytime you hop in your car or in a boat. Understandably people have different opinions with regard to what level or risk warrants action. The risk of something going wrong when boating alone or offshore is pretty much the same if you are in a 4.7m boat or a 4.9m boat. My main objection is with regard to the blanket rule that has been put in place over boats less than 4.8m. The basis for this figure is based on the number of boating accidents that have occurred and how many were in boats less than 4.8m. It is fact that more smaller boats are owned than larger boats and it is also fact that most new boaties start off in a smaller vessel. That is why there are more incidents in smaller vessels! Perhaps if these figures were analysed by comparing the number of incidents to the age of those onboard, or the number of average boating trips made by boats of different size categories we may well have different laws in place? And like i said, they are not intrusive for most styles of fishing but for some styles of fishing such as jigging they are annoying. Again, just because one person finds an item of clothing unobtrusive does not mean everyone else feels the same way. If lifejackets are going to save heaps more lives (which I'm sure they will) then why aren't they made compulsory for boats of all sizes? Aside from what I percieve as being unjust to owners of smaller boats, is it not irresposible that society isn't ensuring that everyone wears lifejackets all the time so we are all safer????

I have a 450 Topender. The hull is fantastic and that was the main reason i purchased the boat. It handles exceptionally well outside in all sorts of conditions for the size of the boat. I would certainly recommened it. The only downside is that the paint telwater uses is absolute crap. In saying so - I am very particular with scratches.

This rule is ridiculous, and is just another example of how society is becoming over safety concious. I think that lifejackets should be compulsory for children under 12 under all circumstances and recommended for others, but this 4.8m boat stuff is just garbage!!! 1) If your boat capsizes and you fall into the water, lifejacket or not search and rescue are still going to need to spend time and money searching for you to rescue you 2) If you are knocked unconcious a lifejacket is useless unles it is activated (refering to manually activated vests) 3) Anyone who says that jackets do not get in the way while fishing - well try jigging, it is an absolute pain in the you know what!!! What bugs me the most is the 4.8m boat garbage. You would be better off in a new 4.5m boat than some 20 year old 5m rust bucket!!! Makes no sense to me? It could be argued this rule is discriminatory towards those who cannot afford a bigger boat! These rules should be applied to all boats or none! Society is becoming an overprotective joke. By raming it down everyone's throat that you are safer with lifejackets on and you must wear them - could this encourage greater risks to be taken from those in small boats because they have been reassured by society that they are now safer? Maybe - maybe not?

Nice catch from a yak mate, well done

I generally tail grab kings and then lift them aboard. For that larger fish i did use a gaff. If and when the next big fish comes, i will definately be going for the tail grab so i can release it!

The outfit used was the following: 80lb braid mainline and 80lb leader. Saltiga 35HS (the lever drag model in single speed) and a Saltiga 56XHFB rod. The reason it only took around 8mins was probably due to the drag I was running. I had preset it prior to the trip and could deadlift 15kg of weight with that drag setting. Fish took an average sized squid. I don't think the fish were schooled up as such, just small packs cruising the area as squidboy mentioned, he was dusted the day before a couple of km's away. No doubt that catching large kings is a combination of good bait, the right gear and simply being in the right place at the right time. This fish, just like jim's was caught at one of the many locations we both fish regularly, there just happened to be a big boy there at the time!

Here is a pic of my new personal best king-fish. It was 127cm full length (laying flat on the carpet - so no tail stretching) and weighed in at 23kg. Caught downrigging a squid in 20m near where we caught fish the other day. Fight took around 8 mins but it is all a blur as the adrenaline was pumping and it happened so quickly.