stylo Posted April 15, 2007 Share Posted April 15, 2007 (edited) Hi all ... Fish caught under the bridge .. edible ?? Basically from Parra river out to the west side of bridge = NON edible ... fish east of harbour, eat in moderation. Does everyone follow this rule? EDIT ... http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/sydney-harbour-closure Edited April 15, 2007 by stylo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy Posted April 15, 2007 Share Posted April 15, 2007 lots of opinions on this topic mate, i wouldnt mind eating fish caught as close to the heads as possible. but cliffo etc would be the limit for me, im such a pansy. Cheers Davy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBLiME Posted April 15, 2007 Share Posted April 15, 2007 Yer.. I'm not so sure abt this, sure they have 'pumped' crap into the waterways.. but I think that it's just another reason to stop people from taking more fish from the water as the over fishing and taking illegal undersized fish by many amateur fishers has caused a rapid decline of fish in the waterways.. sad really... But I wouldn't eat from anywhere near the harbour or even under the bridge... just take a look at the water.. imagine if you were living in it.. you wouldnt be going too well... its a shame really on the harbour.. in some places.. The water around Clifton has noticably changed colour from a clearer blue where you could actually see all the way to the bottom even at high tide, to a more murky brownish/ green ... don't really understand why... maybe because of the rain? shant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catchnrelease Posted April 15, 2007 Share Posted April 15, 2007 Yer.. I'm not so sure abt this, sure they have 'pumped' crap into the waterways.. but I think that it's just another reason to stop people from taking more fish from the water as the over fishing and taking illegal undersized fish by many amateur fishers has caused a rapid decline of fish in the waterways.. sad really... But I wouldn't eat from anywhere near the harbour or even under the bridge... just take a look at the water.. imagine if you were living in it.. you wouldnt be going too well... its a shame really on the harbour.. in some places.. The water around Clifton has noticably changed colour from a clearer blue where you could actually see all the way to the bottom even at high tide, to a more murky brownish/ green ... don't really understand why... maybe because of the rain? shant I follow the rule: Botanical Gardens and further upstream...not edible Botanical Gardens to Clifton Gardens...eat in moderation Clifton Gardens and further offshore...completely safe Not to sure about Middle Harbour though, is it clean? The recent rain probably washed god knows what into the water to make it murky, but that's from assumption. I'm going to Clifton on friday, and if it hasn't rained and the water is still murky, I'll know somethings probably up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmar560 Posted April 15, 2007 Share Posted April 15, 2007 I personally wouldn't eat breams or flatheads from the harbour. Breams have to be 10years or older to be on the legal size. Flatheads live at the bottom where all the heavy metals are deposited. I'll eat bonitos, trevallies or kings if I decide to keep them. The pelagics are IMHO safe from the pollution because they don't stay in the harbour long enough to be contaminated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stylo Posted April 15, 2007 Author Share Posted April 15, 2007 Thanks for the advice guys ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davec84 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 went fishing at clifton gardens a few days ago caught a trev and bonnie planning to eat it for dinner... i'll let you know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkie Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I'll eat bonitos, trevallies or kings if I decide to keep them. The pelagics are IMHO safe from the pollution because they don't stay in the harbour long enough to be contaminated. True, but it's what they eat that's the issue. eg prawns are affected. So anything that eats them (which is pretty much everything) gets a dose. And so it goes up the foodchain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stylo Posted April 17, 2007 Author Share Posted April 17, 2007 True, but it's what they eat that's the issue. eg prawns are affected. So anything that eats them (which is pretty much everything) gets a dose. And so it goes up the foodchain. That makes sense .... What about the squid ? I hear bout guys on here eating the squid that are caught (I presume) from the harbour ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davec84 Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 That makes sense .... What about the squid ? I hear bout guys on here eating the squid that are caught (I presume) from the harbour ... i caught 4 squids yesterday at balmoral wharf and ate them last night. im fine... i think haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gretsch Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 I eat the squid we catch. We don't catch them anywhere near the Bridge though.. well down stream. My thoughts are that if the dioxin issue was ultra serious, the Gov would ban the eating of fish completely. They would not risk the backlash if someone did get sick by not following the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nivek Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 HERE,S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. UP UNTIL THE AUTHORITYS SAID THAT THE FISH AND CRABS ETC HAD HIGH LEVELS OF DIOXIN IN THEM I DO NOT REMEMBER READING OR HEARING ABOUT ANYBODY DIEING PRIOR TO THE MEDIA RELEASE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. HAVING SAID THAT I WAS BORN AND BRED IN CABARITA. MY FATHER AND HIS FATHER FISHED ALL THE TIME IN HEN AND CHICKEN BAY AS WITH MYSELF AND I AM 56 NOW WITH NO MEDICAL PROBLEMS. MY PESONAL OPINION IS THAT THEY DON,T WANT YOU TO FISH IN THE RIVER SO THAT FISH STOCKS CAN BUILD UP BECAUSE OF THE MANY YEARS OF TRAWLING..WHERE DO YOU THINK MOST OF THE HARBOUR PRAWNS CAME FROM? CHEERS KEVIN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 (edited) HERE,S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. UP UNTIL THE AUTHORITYS SAID THAT THE FISH AND CRABS ETC HAD HIGH LEVELS OF DIOXIN IN THEM I DO NOT REMEMBER READING OR HEARING ABOUT ANYBODY DIEING PRIOR TO THE MEDIA RELEASE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. HAVING SAID THAT I WAS BORN AND BRED IN CABARITA. MY FATHER AND HIS FATHER FISHED ALL THE TIME IN HEN AND CHICKEN BAY AS WITH MYSELF AND I AM 56 NOW WITH NO MEDICAL PROBLEMS. MY PESONAL OPINION IS THAT THEY DON,T WANT YOU TO FISH IN THE RIVER SO THAT FISH STOCKS CAN BUILD UP BECAUSE OF THE MANY YEARS OF TRAWLING..WHERE DO YOU THINK MOST OF THE HARBOUR PRAWNS CAME FROM? CHEERS KEVIN Kevin mate sorry I couldnt resist, But if u have no medical problems then WHY ARE YOU YELLING at us? Ps- eating fish outta the harbour hasnt killed me yet either and I dont think it will, I do avoid fishing west of Clifton though. penguin Edited April 18, 2007 by penguin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nivek Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 HERE,S A QUESTION! WOULD YOU EAT FISH CAUGHT IN THE VINCINITY OF THE COOKS RIVER CHANNEL LEADING INTO THE BOAT RAMP.THIS IS CONNECTED TO BOTANY BAY? I DID READ A REPORT SAYING IT WAS HIGHLY POLLUTED. ARE THERE SIGNS AROUND STATING THIS .NO! IF THE FISH IN OUR WATERWAYS ARE NOT FIT TO EAT HOW COME THEY DON,T COMPLETELY BAN FISHING . THIS IS JUST MY VIEW PS I TYPE BIG SO AS TO READ SCREEN EASY KEVIN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stylo Posted April 18, 2007 Author Share Posted April 18, 2007 HAHA ! Davy, you were absoulutely correct .. lot's of opinions on this ... Now you guys have got me wondering if I should thaw those bream out and eat them ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew399 Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Another important factor that i think gets overlooked alot of the time is that the gov researchers and who ever else is concerned have known that the harbour fish have contained these levels of dioxins for over 10 years. The reason it has only just recently come of concern is that the world safety standards for acceptable levels of dioxin consumption have been greatly reduced, at the same time we were informed that harbour fish were unsafe. So prior to 2004 or whenever it was, it was considered safe to consume foods that contained a much higher level of dioxins then it is now deemed safe to. To be honest it just seems like people are trying to cover themselves. I eat flatties from lane cove on occassions, however rather then the dioxin levels it is the levels of lead that i would be concerned with that side of the bridge. In regards to the pelagic species eating contaminated foods such as prawns, squid etc from the harbour, the act that they are not resident fish and leave the harbour at various stages of the seasons mean that the contaminated foods would form quite a miniscule part of their diet in the long run. The concern is more with resident fish such as bream, flatties etc that live relatively in the same proximity their whole life... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now