Ross Hunter Posted May 13, 2007 Author Share Posted May 13, 2007 Billfisher, You have hit the nail on the head and I agree totally that fish stocks are less than they used to be, but who created this problem that is the million dollar question. I agree when you read some of my ramblings from the dinasaur era that fishing was much better back then and I do believe that it was...For example kingfish were taken for granted. but then came kingfish traps and in few short years almost decimated them......then gem fish, a fish that NSW fisheries did a major sales campain on, so every deep water trawler put booms on and trawled the crap out of them..they are to be placed on the endangered species list soon.Then there's.the north coast tailor netted whilst spawning and sold for 50c a kilo, bluefin tuna and orange roughy all these species badly managed by the very people who earned their living from them but fished them to near exctinction In the case of the recreational angler, we too have our skeletons in the closet. The old fishing comps with box trailers and utes full of fish a terrible sight , also the fact that Sydney's population has gone from 1.5 million people to 6 million during this same period, this has a two fold effect of ceating more demand for fish and also the introduction of more rec and pro fisherman . It is sad that fisheries through out the world have the habit of over fishing stocks and then trying to fix them after the well runs dry and that is never an easy fix. It would be a perfect world if our sustainable stocks were monitored and all parties new how much pressure the stocks can take both from the commercial and rec sector. What's the answer? (a) Governments that will spend millions of dollars on scientific research to study our fish stocks then to act in an advisory capacity to all sectors be it rec or commercial. (B)As time goes by within the next 20 years we will see the introduction of many more Aquaculture farms this will ease pressure on the demand for fresh fish and in turn taking a little pressure off our esturine and oceanic stocks. ©In my mind the rec angler under current bag limits can not do a lot of harm to existing stocks when compared to longlining,deepand shallow water trawl , purse seining, set lining and haul netting ( in comparison we are talking tonnage versus kilos) We have had recent buy outs of esturine pros and oceanic fishermen. Bearing in mind these guys are good decent men who in many cases have worked their trade for generations and have only abided by the laws as created by the governing bodies. There is no easy fix in the stuation as far as I can see but would be most interested in some Raiders thoughts as it is a most important issue for not only us but future generations of rec anglers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 (edited) I disagree. Lack of fish is a problem. You need only read Ross Hunter's memoirs from the 70's to or look at old black and white photos of guys with 50 big jewies in a 3.5 metre tinny. Or trawl livies all day for not a touch at once thriving reefs to know that Sydney stocks are down. People just lower their standards to match declinging stocks and forget that areas are sub healthly. Back in the 60 and 70s a lot of our fish stocks were vitually untouched. Some declines are invevitable. This is not the same as unsustainable fishing. Fisheries biologist regard a reduction in spawning stock to 30 - 40% of the unfished state as maximum sustainable yield. Also habitat degradation and pollution don't help our fish stocks. PS the inshore reefs of Sydney are fishing very well at the moment for mowies, snapper and other reef fish. international and local profishing is currently excessive. And for me your arguement that overfishing isn't a problem because once stocks get really low commerical fishing ceases to be eonomically viable and stops allowing the species to crawl their way back is highly depressing. It is not acceptible to overfish a species until it stops being commericial viable. Thats not a natural or healthy cycle. It would also bung up the food chain. I never made that argument - your putting words in my mouth. Your statement assumes there is no fisheries managment here and no use of precaution. You are building up a straw man. Of couse if stocks get really low its a problem - but I was pointing out that even in these cases they usually recover quickly when fishing is wound back. Environmental grounds for banning estuary pros: They destory the habitat, food chain and stocks. Estuary profishing isn't sustainable and is terrible for the environment. What more do you want? I'm no expert, but they mustn't make any good money for all the damage they cause, either. moral grounds:buy backs are fairly generous considering they are all just scraping by at the moment due to the lack of sustainability. economic: They don't generate much economic activity. Compared to the surges in rec fishing industry that would no doubt follow such bannings. What wrong with buying back estuary pro fishing licences? I'd go for it no hesitation Yes but you said before ban all INSHORE commercial fishing. Now you have changed to estuaries. Commercial fishing already is banned in 30 of the states estuaries! Yes. Alot of the time it comes from countries with no environmental sanctions and theirstocks are already pillaged. Eating Nile Perch our like species is basically exploiting the third world. The local populations there can only afford to buy the frame of the fish - yes the same part we throw back. Its disgusting There should never be any compromises about (or apologies made for) over fishing. There is a fine line between maximum sustainable yield and ovefishing. The status of stocks is not always fully known. There is not much risk of monitoring of effort and catches and winding it back if signs of overfishing occur. Especially when a precautionary approch is also used. I already pointed out there 30 rec havens in NSW and there are also area bans on trawling to protect stocks. Eg a ban on ocean fish trawling in the Port Kembla region and waters noth of Smokey Cape. Edited May 13, 2007 by billfisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laredo Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 (edited) Billfisher, you clearly know your facts, which is great to see. We are all in general agreement re: maintaining our future marine environments earlier when i said 'inshore', I did mean estuary - wrong terminology by me, my fault One of the mains probs as i see it is that immense difficulty of doing valid studies. In these cases i would think it be best to err on the side of caution cheers fellas Edited May 14, 2007 by Laredo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 (edited) Aquaculture does have its own impact on the environment but overall it does increase productivity and so takes pressure off wild stocks. Its profitable too - I bought some shares in Tassal Group (a salmon farmer in Tas) 18 months ago and tripled my money - more cash for fishing gear! Our inshore fishery is one of high diversity (many species) and it is not really practical to conduct detailed stock assessments. I think fisheries are doing the right thing in this case in that they use a precautionary approach by making effort reductions (the no of pro licences has halved since the 1990's) and area bans for high impact activities (rec havens in estuaries, bans on ocean trawling). Although there are less fish around than 40 years ago the old cowboy days of fisheries managment are gone too. Our stocks recieve some pressure but are stable. There's are still plenty of fish around even near Sydney. I fish nearly every weekend around Sydney and have only had 2 dud trips in 12 months. Further away at places like South West Rocks the fishing is better still and the mid sized pelagic action is just as good as it was on my first visit 20 years ago. I don't think there is any reason for us to be conned into accepting marine park lockouts. There are managment techniques which are not only more effective they are not so punitive for our sport. Edited May 14, 2007 by billfisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 people forget how many fish we tag and why we do it ! keep up the good work ross and glenn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 maybe we need more of this !!!the shark ate the camera after this shot was taken .more fiji tigers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Hunter Posted June 5, 2007 Author Share Posted June 5, 2007 maybe we need more of this !!!the shark ate the camera after this shot was taken .more fiji tigers Wow! that's a big tiger shark..great shot! I am just reading the St George Sportfishing Club's newsletter I have been a member of this club for close to 40 years and was most interested to read that some of the members witnessed a mullet hauler catch and release 72 grey nurse sharks in his nets at South West Rocks recently. I say why was he setting gear in a known habitat or did fisheries not know about the habitat 72 grey nurse sharks in one haul?.........mmm..you would think that fisheries would have researched this one... interesting........But don't any of you awful recreational anglers go any where within 1500 metres of the area...We really are the scum of the sea or at least that's the way we are treated by fisheries and NPAW and their green hangers on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelr Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 I realise that this post is doing nothing to return to the original topic, however, in respect of Recreational Fishing Havens. I would take the opportunity to bring to members attention the present circumstances surrounding the Bellinger River Recreational Fishing Haven (RFH). The creation of this RFH allowed for the buy-out of the commercial estuary fishers then present within the system, thus removing pressure on the fish species targetted by the pros. However, at this moment, a group of travelling Ocean Haul Fishers, specifically Beach Haul netters ostensibly targetting mullet, are awaiting the annual mullet run so they can haul net those species that exit the river during this process. In 2004 this same group took an estimated 2 tonnes of mulloway during an identical operation. As you can imagine local rec fishers are somewhat incensed at the present situation. Fisheries have advised that the presence of the beach haul netters immediately adjacent to the confluence of the river and the sea is legal. As long as they conform with the relevent regulations, they can take the following species via Beach Haul netting. All mullet species, blue, frigate and spanish mackeral, yellowfin bream, sand whiting, diamond fish, luderick, sweep, tarwhine, dart, salmon, longtail and mackeral tuna, 3 species of bonito, as well as mulloway. So what I'm saying is while it seems that fish numbers are being encouraged to prosper within the RFH of the river/estuary system, the commercial sector is free to plunder them as they hit the beach! Considering the $20 million loan taken by NSW Fisheries to set up the RFHs is being repayed by Rec Fishers licence fees, the pros must be having more than a little chuckle to themselves! This is only one example, in the Richmond and Tweed rivers, our licence fees pay for a mulloway re-stocking program. I'm sure the local commercial Estuary Haul Fishers, still able to operate within these rivers, are enjoying this bonus immensely. There are several rivers declared RFH in NSW, what is happening at the mouth of the Bellinger at the moment is small beer compared to the Beach Haul netting occuring annually, adjacent to the Macleay, Clarence etc. Sorry for the monologue, but I am one NSW rec licence holder who is not happy with this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 (edited) Or trawl livies all day for not a touch at once thriving reefs to know that Sydney stocks are down. People just lower their standards to match declinging stocks and forget that areas are sub healthly. Laredo, I think there is another explanation as to why your livies aren't getting touched on Sydneys inshore reefs. The water close to shore has been unusually cold this summer due to the Corolis effect: The COROLIS FORCE is the apparent force that acts upon an object moving in a rotating system (ex: Earth). Although the wind may actually be traveling in a straight path on the surface of the Earth, an observer above the Earth would see the wind as if it were raveling in curve (left to right) due to the rotation of the Earth. In considering oceanography, the corolis force results in the apparent deflection of objects to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere. In this process, the Corolis effect moves the surface ocean water away from the shore. As ocean water moves to the shore, the deeper water replaces the surface water. Since the ocean water is colder at greater depths, this replacement process causes the surface water to become colder. So in our case the strong northerly winds have moved the warm water out to sea and cold water has welled up to replace it. In contrast to the lack of pelagics on the close in reefs the Sydney charter boat operator reports that it has been the best season on kingfish in Sydney Harbour that he can recall. It looks like they prefered the warmer harbour water! Edited June 10, 2007 by billfisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henryinnis Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 "Environmental grounds for banning estuary pros: They destory the habitat, food chain and stocks. Estuary profishing isn't sustainable and is terrible for the environment. What more do you want? I'm no expert, but they mustn't make any good money for all the damage they cause, either. moral grounds:buy backs are fairly generous considering they are all just scraping by at the moment due to the lack of sustainability. economic: They don't generate much economic activity. Compared to the surges in rec fishing industry that would no doubt follow such bannings. What wrong with buying back estuary pro fishing licences? I'd go for it no hesitation Yes but you said before ban all INSHORE commercial fishing. Now you have changed to estuaries. Commercial fishing already is banned in 30 of the states estuaries! Yes. Alot of the time it comes from countries with no environmental sanctions and theirstocks are already pillaged. Eating Nile Perch our like species is basically exploiting the third world. The local populations there can only afford to buy the frame of the fish - yes the same part we throw back. Its disgusting There should never be any compromises about (or apologies made for) over fishing. There is a fine line between maximum sustainable yield and ovefishing. The status of stocks is not always fully known. There is not much risk of monitoring of effort and catches and winding it back if signs of overfishing occur. Especially when a precautionary approch is also used. I already pointed out there 30 rec havens in NSW and there are also area bans on trawling to protect stocks. Eg a ban on ocean fish trawling in the Port Kembla region and waters noth of Smokey Cape." The Hawkesbury River Estuary System is still fished heavily commercially. Fish stocks have declined considerably, and I believe that all commercial inshore fishing within 1 km of the coast should be banned, as stocks are at risk.... I think aquaculture is the way forward. HOWEVER, I can understand that economically, this is not a sensible option for commercial fisho's. This is their livelihood. I think what we need to do is too create other opportunities for the commercial fisho's to work at (eg, more job solutions) as this is often the only way these people can get cash and earn a living. I think that if we do this, combined with the buyout options, we can gradually fade out most of the commercial fishing industry. The bottom line is do we risk the jobs of Sydney sider's or our recreational pastime... Henners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 The Hawkesbury River Estuary System is still fished heavily commercially. Fish stocks have declined considerably, and I believe that all commercial inshore fishing within 1 km of the coast should be banned, as stocks are at risk.... I think aquaculture is the way forward. HOWEVER, I can understand that economically, this is not a sensible option for commercial fisho's. This is their livelihood. I think what we need to do is too create other opportunities for the commercial fisho's to work at (eg, more job solutions) as this is often the only way these people can get cash and earn a living. I think that if we do this, combined with the buyout options, we can gradually fade out most of the commercial fishing industry. The bottom line is do we risk the jobs of Sydney sider's or our recreational pastime... Henners Where is your evidence our inshore stocks are at risk? The fact that stocks are stable and that there are plenty of fish still around suggest the current level of fishing is sustainable. Remember its unfounded claims of overfishing that are seeing us locked out of our spots in Marine Park Sanctuaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jewgaffer Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 (edited) Where is your evidence our inshore stocks are at risk? The fact that stocks are stable and that there are plenty of fish still around suggest the current level of fishing is sustainable. Remember its unfounded claims of overfishing that are seeing us locked out of our spots in Marine Park Sanctuaries. until they show evidence to the contrary and i doubt that will happen, i couldn't agree more. i believe that marine parks substantiate very little and please just a few. jewgaffer fish on Edited July 12, 2007 by jewgaffer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Who can argue that reducing the number of fish taken from the sea by the commercial sector will prove detrimental to fish stocks in the coming years? I think we all agree that is the way forward - the government initiative of buying back licences is not only well thought out but well executed as the reduction in the long line fleet demonstrates. Still a long long way to go though. What do I want to see happen in the future? I want my little boys to be able to charge out of the heads - show their children whales and dolphins, get them onto some outstanding fish and just enjoy the things that we all did when we were kids. I am not looking to jump on any bandwagon or pretend to be a fish conservationist specialist as there are those out there much well versed on the issues but it does frustrate me that the fishing community cannot agree on the broader picture. All the heckling and "xxx" you said this when I meant that crap should stop. Spend that energy supporting a conservation movement that you agree with - hell - even donate some money towards the cause. Raiders have proved time and again to be the best source of fishing info available on the net - try to keep the standard high - there are some extremely knowledgeable people on this forum which is part of the reason we keep coming back. I find the thought of the younger generation getting out on the water with nothing but a desert of white sand beneath the boat a very disturbing image. Thats not likely to happen Andy Loops. Conservation is mainstream now. Many so called conservation/ environmental groups have responded by becoming more radical or a cloak for activism of the far left. Our fisheries are being managed under tight constraints. Problems of overfishing have or are being addressed. Conservation groups concerned with marine issues (eg the NPA, NCC and WWF) are intent on heavily restricting our sport out of existance with marine park locouts and other draconian measures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jewgaffer Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Thats not likely to happen Andy Loops. Conservation is mainstream now. Many so called conservation/ environmental groups have responded by becoming more radical or a cloak for activism of the far left. Our fisheries are being managed under tight constraints. Problems of overfishing have or are being addressed. Conservation groups concerned with marine issues (eg the NPA, NCC and WWF) are intent on heavily restricting our sport out of existance with marine park locouts and other draconian measures. they've got me beat billfisher. your participation is most valuable. i can't understand why they are cutting off safe access by establishing no go areas in prime recreational spots now called marine parks and ruining coastal caravan park type businesses such as they have done in lennox as only one example and in the many local tackle shops eand other businesses almost totally reliant on income from local plus passing and holiday trade. WHEN on the other hand they are providing f.a.d for devices for "fishing out of harm's way" (!! ?) jewgaffer i can't sign off by saying fish on this time when it's really fish off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrelxr6 Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 i dont like getting into the political side of things as it upsets me... but i think it is time that the fisheries also enforce fines on undersized catches and catch and release tactics for the breader fish!!! as well as more education... it pisses me off that the greenies have a replywith of over fishing when 60% of people love the sport and will only take what they will eat and the other 40% will keep breaders and undersized fish. i find this hard to believe. most people i know obey the bag limit and are happy to release the breeeders.. personally if i see people keeping undersized fish they will cop abuse from me!!! i dont mean to upset any one on the forum but that is my opinion on the situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 i dont like getting into the political side of things as it upsets me... but i think it is time that the fisheries also enforce fines on undersized catches and catch and release tactics for the breader fish!!! as well as more education... it pisses me off that the greenies have a replywith of over fishing when 60% of people love the sport and will only take what they will eat and the other 40% will keep breaders and undersized fish. i find this hard to believe. most people i know obey the bag limit and are happy to release the breeeders.. personally if i see people keeping undersized fish they will cop abuse from me!!! i dont mean to upset any one on the forum but that is my opinion on the situation I'm not sure what your saying nathan. Just about all legal sized fish are 'breeders'. There is nothing wrong from a fisheries managment perpective taking breeding sized fish either - so long as it is done sustainably. As to taken undersized fish I think you will find that compliance as very high to the regulations regarding recreational fishing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azza84 Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 i dont like getting into the political side of things as it upsets me... but i think it is time that the fisheries also enforce fines on undersized catches and catch and release tactics for the breader fish!!! as well as more education... it pisses me off that the greenies have a replywith of over fishing when 60% of people love the sport and will only take what they will eat and the other 40% will keep breaders and undersized fish. i find this hard to believe. most people i know obey the bag limit and are happy to release the breeeders.. personally if i see people keeping undersized fish they will cop abuse from me!!! i dont mean to upset any one on the forum but that is my opinion on the situation i totally agree with u nathan it piss me off to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveD Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 How much are commercial fishing vessels monitored? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 Commercial or recreational we are all fishermen. The recreational catch is more like a harvest in any case. I don't think the 'ban the bloody pros' mentality is a very mature approach. Fisheries need to be managed holistically and all stakeholders need to be considered. Green groups will play one group off against another then move in on to their next target. Have a look at this article from the US: SPORT FISHERMEN IGNORED WRITING ON THE WALL FOR TOO LONG Posted 8/30/04 In a recent article in the journal, Science, an ever popular and receptive forum to stage advocacy positions, a recent study suggested that recreational fishermen are responsible for harvesting more fish than originally thought and, worse yet, were responsible for harvesting more fish of concern because of dwindling stocks to an alarming degree. This might come as a surprise to any recreational fishermen or group representing recreational fishermen if they have had their heads buried in the sand for the last several years. For those who are experienced observers of the strategies of the anti-use non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the foundations that fund their campaigns, this was the long anticipated next move in the pincher effect of controlling the worlds marine resources by these groups, by their followers in the various regulatory bodies, and by the all too easily manipulated voting public. One has to understand that many of these groups and foundation truly believe that they are betters keepers of the planets resources than anyone else. Many in fact believe that man is nothing more than a pestilence on the planet and all of the flora and fauna take precedent over man. The latter is a condition they are determined to make that happen. Think back a few years and history will portend the future. First, the anti-use advocates had to establish the fact that our oceans, rivers and lakes were in trouble from a resource standpoint. That did not take too much effort. Then they had to establish health concerns with trace levels of PCBs, mercury and the like. (Remember, that the ability to even detect some of the elements was unavailable up until recently. And, they never bother to clarify that because one can measure something it may not necessarily be bad. It is the dose of any chemical even oxygen that determines toxicity.) Next they had to define a villain. The poster boy for the villain became the commercial fisherman. As we have always reported, any advocacy issues has to have some basis of fact, albeit old, obsolete, insignificant, or not even a real threat to point to in order to establish the perception of credibility. Here are the facts. Our oceans have been abused. Commercial fishing fleets are too many, chasing too few fish. The definitions of depleted and over fished and fully utilized are confusing and almost misleading to the average person. Our rivers and lakes have been used as toilets by every one from business to agriculture to our cities and suburbs. So, indeed, there is some basis in fact for the NGO allegations. But their next steps were all too clever in their design and strategy. First, they used recreational fisherman as a tool to go after the commercial fisherman. The recreational folks were all too eager to help. They saw more fish for them to catch. By using stereotypical advocacy campaigns, funded heavily from sympathetic green foundations, the case was made that our oceans were on the verge of collapse from a marine resource standpoint. Perhaps one of the most effective and biggest slam dunk made by the coalition of environmental NGOs and recreational fishermen was the ballot initiative along the Gulf and South Atlantic states. In these states, the voting power of the millions of recreational fishermen and the sympathetic public, absolutely crushed the few thousand commercial fishermen fighting for the economic livelihoods. Florida, as an example, saw 72 percent of voters (not marine biologists nor fishery management agencies) make the determination by ballot that gill netting was no longer wanted. Longlining in millions of square miles of ocean around Hawaii was eliminated because of questionable concerns about sea turtles, and in particular, about a species (the leatherback) that neither eats longline bait nor finds itself in lethal entanglements despite NGO rhetoric insinuating otherwise. There were a few of us who tried to moderate the enthusiasm of the recreational groups and magazine editors by warning that this was the first step in the attempt to regulate them. Naturally, they scoffed. Even when told the strategy that would be used against them! Now the stage is set. After years of promoting NGO claims against commercial fishermen, the prestigious publication Science is suggesting that perhaps the real cause of the marine resource decline is the recreational fishermen. Once that claim is made, the logical next step is the demand that these same recreational fishermen (and former allies against the commercial sector) must be controlled or stopped! Interestingly in the Science study, the authors checkmated the natural response of many recreational catch and release fishermen by stating that such tactics still affects the health of the fish and must be counted as a kill. Press about the Science study piled on other long-running NGO-instigated allegations about the dangers of eating fish because of the possible contamination by mercury, PCB, etc. This is the health card played by the environmental community so effective. Who could possibly object to efforts to halt the endangering of our children with poisonous seafood? Ironically, those same press accounts contain comments from the commercial fishing groups supporting the study. Now, the shoe is on the other foot! Guess who might support this initiative? The next move is to slowly close the pincher and begin restricting and controlling the recreational fishermen as has happened to the commercial groups. Soon we will begin to see more and more studies revealing the amount of fish harvested by the recreational fisherman. Sport fishings former allies will feign surprise at the realization that, oh my goodness, the recreational toll on fish species is much more than thought and even more in some cases than those nasty commercial guys. The new NGO campaign against recreational fishermen will find the same group who once were lionized by environmental groups as concerned champions of marine life being characterized as rich, spoiled fat guys with big, high dollar, gas guzzling boats, who enter tournaments where they can win hundreds of thousands of dollars by torturing a fish on the end of a line, and dragging it back to a dock to be weighed and have a picture taken with rod in hand and a cigar in the other only to have the fish is tossed into a dumpster (with pictures to support all of the above.) Voters will be a simple, very effective question: Should the oceans be the exclusive playground for rich guys? As predicted, the public will answer: Of course not! The NGO campaign will reveal that more hooks are dragged behind recreational boats on a long weekend that behind all of the longline boats in a year! Irate calls will demand this wasteful, unregulated, greed-driven practice must be stopped. Finally, after beating up the method of catch, the cruelty, the wasted resource, and the vast numbers of fish being killed by people in fancy boats, the environmental activists will once again play their health card portraying any and all fish taken by recreational fishermen as an unsafe food source that is endangering your childrens health because of some rich mans game. In states where ballot initiatives are allowed, you will see the NGO list of demands against recreational fishing on the ballot. In other states, you will see it introduced via legislative action by the political water carriers of these groups. These groups will call for more NGO representation (the folks who love he planet) on marine resource management councils replacing the recreational and commercial representation (the environmental bad guys). This is the typical peel the onion strategy that these groups use against hunting. Get one hunting group to do the dirty work for the anti-use NGO on another hunting group. After there is only one of two groups standing, the NGO takes them down. I will bet you my next seafood meal that there will be factions within the recreational groups that will side with the anti-use NGOs because they think it will benefit them. I know many of the NGOs are betting on it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 (edited) Thanks Billfisher - I think you are right in that conservation is now a mainstream ideal. When you hear about the thousands of tonnes of by-catch it makes you wonder how an industry like commercial fishing industry can sustain itself. I would be interested to know how much money is being spent researching fishing techniques to reduce the by-catch. Line and trap fishing has far less by catch than trawling. According to the EIS there is a ban on ocean fish trawling in NSW waters north of Smokey Cape. Likewise for the Port Kembla area. They are considering banning trawling in 75% of NSW waters south of Sydney. I heard there are now only two trawlers between Sydney and Bermagui. Edited September 9, 2007 by billfisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastspinna Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Check this out: http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-parks...ement-tool.html This clown thinks marine parks are doing us a favour because we won't need our boats any more. He wants the parks around large population centres too! lol that is a crock...he even says marine parks will let us spear groper again lol sustainably though anyway slightly off topic i couldn't help but be amused at the irony that ross hunters gamefishing charters was advertised on google ads at the bottom of that clowns article.... maybe you can set his readers straight if they come out with ya ross lol 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