Have your say on the review of NSW recreational fishing rules

[paulg]

Hi, I'm unsure if this has been brought up, but a few in the

Hierarchy of our be loved sport, have requested "Our View".

Yes, the view of people who get out there and actually wet a line and

who spend time on the water

I have skimmed through it and it asks people opinions on bag limts, minimum legal length, fishing methods etc.

It could be an opportunity to submit a "Fishraider's Form" being backed up by X amount of members, it may have more weight.

The link is below:

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/recreational/info/review

Things that have been making my hair stand up lately is:

1. being allowed to keep / kill large flathead (the breeders) should be a maximum size (along with a minimum size) you can keep and

2. the legal minimum length for mulloway 45cms is way too small, i have been told that a 45cm fish has not even had the chance to breed.

I would love to hear what other issues on the topic need a mention.

Mr RB.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Mr Rosebay

[SargeRX8]

So you can keep a flathead that hasn't bred but cant keep the jew that hasn't bred. I think the system is fine as is and rather than stopping people from keeping a big flatty or a legal jew, how about they better enforce the rules they have now. You're sick of seeing people taking home big flathead? Well im sick of people taking home undersized fish, no licenses, abusing the amount of fish they take (people who haunt a spot day in day out and then complain theres no fish). Some people need to learn the rules of bag limits, size limits and possession limits. If you got 3 kings at home and go out and catch 5 the next day, well you broke the possession limit. Who's gonna enforce that one?

[fishmaniac]

I think reducing the bag limit from 2 tuna over 90cm to 1 tuna over 90cm is ridiculous. You have to get the right currents, the right weather, spend 100s in fuel and bait and you might find them. If you do get onto a patch to suggest you can only keep 1 per person while the Jap long-liners & purse seiners are out there slaughtering them by the tonnes every other day is a joke to say the least.

Increase legal length of jewfish.

Increase legal length of kingfish.

Maybe they should put something in about actually getting someone to enforce these rules??? The amount I fish compared to how many times I have been checked is hopeless

[brettmann86]

Increase in jewfish legal size 45cm is just a pup.

Lets follow suit with Victoria and introduce a maximum size limit for flathead I believe they have adopted 65cm as the maximum.

And lower the bag limit of kingies from 5 to 3 who needs 5 kings??? No ones families that big

[Paul]

Personally, I'm ok with the changes but I think the drop in bag limit for some species is a shame for those who don't get the chance to go fishing regularly and want that memorable experience when they do get to go.

[pomey_git]

I wonder if a maximum size on all fish is a good idea for preserving fish stocks.

As with Flatties you would only be supposed to take fish between the size of X and Y. This would preserve the best breeders (helping to boost overall numbers) and also mean that they were still out there to be caught again (bonus for us).

Any thoughts?

Foot note - I base this on absolutly no facts. I'm just trying to use common sence.

[Scratchie]

I agree with sargerx8. The rules are fine the way they are. They have already increased sanctuary areas and the size and bag limits are fine!

How about they enforce the rules they have first, then look at changing them if they're not working.

Like most people on this site, I release way more fish than i keep but I always love bringing home a feed that comply with the rules. But no one knows I'm doing the right thing because I've never been checked. No once stopped in the time I've been fishing and I go out more than most. I put 780 engine hours in last year and was never checked?? So why bother looking at size and limits. They need to get out there and police the rules they already have!

Cheers scratchie!!!

[Mr Squidy]

It was only about six months back they released a scientific investigation paper on changing the bag and size limits with regards to Jewies and now this comes out with no mention whatsoever of the proposals in the previous report, do these people actually speak to each other??

For me 45cm on Jew is just criminal, must be increased to at least 65cm (preferably 70cm) and i'd love to see the bag limit back to two per person. Like many my dream is that 30kg+ monster and with the current setup that is only gettting less likely in Sydney year on year.

Hope all the other fans of this species on this site make their feelings heard.

R

[filthmonger]

Jewies have to be 70cm, how can they not see this?

[Yowie]

I fish once a week to catch a feed or 2. If I have enough fish, I stop fishing and head for home, no need to stay out all day.

The jewie bag limit is 5, I usually keep one, maybe 2 but that's it. The rest are released if not too deeply hooked, and some of the small jewies can be rather greedy and swallow big baits on big hooks, which can cause damage to the stomach or gills. That's the problem I have found with the smaller ones.

Some of the bag limits could be dropped, don't know why you need to keep the bag limit of 20 of a particular fish, and 10 of another species.

The only one I would increase would be the chinaman leatherjacket caught outside.

Edited May 9, 2013 by yowie

[brettmann86]

I just read over all of them and only 2 arguments I have is no increase on jewies and no maximum size for duskies. The rest of it sounds completely fair.

[squidboy]

The rules look good. If more fish can get to breeding states, then that means more fish can grow up to the sizes (and breed too). I am more concerned with the ability of our department to police the matter. I have been fishing for 26 years and only been checked twice. I know that night time fishing inspections can be dangerous but at the end of the day crimes are performed in the dark too after 5pm. It is a sad fact that people illegally fish at night time and not a whole lot is being done to stop it. I alone could fine thirty people by driving round the habour and issuing tickets by my self if I had the power. There are far too many people unlicenced or catching and mincing anything that has a tail on it. Imagine if it was a full time job how many people could get fined and how many more people would understand the law is the law. It would be far effective if these rules can be enforced, sending the right message to the people doing the wrong thing or reminind ghte people who are doing the right thing, not to consider doing the wrong thing.

In all, my view is the rules are good, but there is absolutly no point in having rules in place that are not policed effectivelly. This is a recipee for disaster where the population will soon catch on that because we are not being watched and fined for not following the rules, then it is not only ok to not follow the rules, but not even buy a fishing licence.

Lets make it more visible that it is an offence to catch unders size, too many and fish without a licence. The rules will be more important then and make it better for all to enjoy.

Just a view, not pointing the finger, I think the rules are a great way to save our fish and make sure we hook up in the future.

[Catchin Jack]

Just change the rules and allow "maximum catch/fish per person, per day" no matter what species it is.

[sifisho]

Just change the rules and allow "maximum catch/fish per person, per day" no matter what species it is.

Really? What number would you go for? Five whiting isn't much, but its a lot of YFT...

[matt84]

Or just stop the pro fishers....

I'll give u an example... They want to 1/2 blackfish from 20 to 10, Last year fishing of blacksmith breakwall, large school of blackfish (hundreds) I was catching a few, when the pros lauch there boat and row out putting a wide net round the entire school, no survivors, got the whole lot (filled several truck trays)... Now does it really matter if my bag limit is 10 or 20 on that day when the pros just take everything that was left???

Now while agree that some changes need to happen with size limits, I think we all know where the real problem is.... Pros raping the ocean

[SargeRX8]

We were out in the hawkesbury and I was pretty shocked seeing a trawler going back and forward with his net from that red marker near flint and steel down as far as where ever, then doing a u-turn and going back at it again. I really didn't think they were allowed to do that.

Whats the go with total bag limits and possession limits. There are people who find say kingfish at a spot one day, go there, harvest 5, go home, stash them in fridge, go back tomorrow and rape the same spot until it no longer produces fish. Who is going to enforce the possession limits? Why do we have possession limits? I really don't think alot of people care about these. They pay for their gear, their boat so they think they have to rape the sea because they can.

Edited May 11, 2013 by SargeRX8

[Scratchie]

We were out in the hawkesbury and I was pretty shocked seeing a trawler going back and forward with his net from that red marker near flint and steel down as far as where ever, then doing a u-turn and going back at it again. I really didn't think they were allowed to do that.

Yes they can. As far as I'm aware, they haven't bought out the licenses in the hawkesbury yet!

Cheers scratchie!!!

[Catchin Jack]

Really? What number would you go for? Five whiting isn't much, but its a lot of YFT...

A smallest number as possible, a person only really needs a couple of fish for a feed per day imo.

As for YFT, i'm sure they could use common sense and use minimum sizes and for some species such as YFT have a limit but I think a general so many fish per person regardless of species may work with special conditions. I don't see why someone has to get a bag limit per species and have buckets of fish per day, to me that's just like a trawler would do, but that's just my thoughts.

[SargeRX8]

A smallest number as possible, a person only really needs a couple of fish for a feed per day imo.

As for YFT, i'm sure they could use common sense and use minimum sizes and for some species such as YFT have a limit but I think a general so many fish per person regardless of species may work with special conditions. I don't see why someone has to get a bag limit per species and have buckets of fish per day, to me that's just like a trawler would do, but that's just my thoughts.

The same people who don't follow rules now, won't follow them later. This is only going to affect those who follow rules and most who follow the rules already only take what they need. Rule will change, no one will enforce.

[Catchin Jack]

Well why people worried about flatty and jew lengths then if people don't follow rules and it's not enforced?

Leave it as is then?

[Yowie]

A smallest number as possible, a person only really needs a couple of fish for a feed per day imo.

As for YFT, i'm sure they could use common sense and use minimum sizes and for some species such as YFT have a limit but I think a general so many fish per person regardless of species may work with special conditions. I don't see why someone has to get a bag limit per species and have buckets of fish per day, to me that's just like a trawler would do, but that's just my thoughts.

Agree there.

As have seen written in a few places, "Limit your catch, don't catch your limit." Why does someone need to catch and keep 20 bream, or 20 tailor in one outing? F**k knows why.

As for jewies and flatties not changing, the responsible anglers will only need to keep 1 or 2 jewies, and self regulate on releasing larger flatties.

Edited May 11, 2013 by yowie

[adkel53]

The same people who don't follow rules now, won't follow them later. This is only going to affect those who follow rules and most who follow the rules already only take what they need. Rule will change, no one will enforce.

Very good point. Rules mean Nothing to many people when they are not enforced and hence the chances of being caught are minimal. I have been checked only twice in my fishing career - once on the harbour and once at Jindabyne.

As for the bag limit changes, I think some of them are ridiculous. Ten legal whiting or 5 legal flathead would feed a family of two adults and three teenagers just once. I feel that one is entitled to keep a couple of feeds for the family if they so desire. We don't all live close to the water or have the opportunity to fish regularly (many are confined to weekends and holidays). Hence, the opportunity to catch and keep a few feeds for the family will be severely curtailed by these changes.

On the issue of size limits, I think that some should be increased - flathead and jewfish being at the top of the list. Currently it seems that it is ok to take some species before they have the chance to spawn but not others. How many 36 cm flathead or 45 cm jewfish have spawned? Remember when the kingfish limit was lifted from 60 to 65 cm? The rationale given then was that a 60 cm kingfish had yet to spawn. What is the rationale for reducing the size limit for dolphin fish? It was only introduced a few years ago.

I'm also in favour of maximum size limits for some species. Let the big breeders do their thing I say.

Perhaps the thing that pisses me off most in this discussion paper is the very last recommendation. That is, to allow bow hunters to target carp. If that is not a sop to the "Fishers" and Shooters party to buy their vote for these proposals then I am a monkey's uncle! How many fishers in NSW are clamouring for the right to shoot arrows at carp?

[Snagmaster]

It is the pro's that are the true "fishraiders", but every time I go fishing, I see people keeping every little finned creature they hook...straight into the bucket.

I'd rather follow rules and feel good about it, than have no guidelines at all.

I would never keep an undersized fish or a large flathead, groper or cod. Nor will I ever kill another octopus after discovering that they are intelligent.

That's just my choice as a responsible person.

I saw a huge blue groper yesterday morning, cruising around the kelp beds. Would have been about 90cm long. A lot of fishermen would kill to get their hands on such a fish. If an animal doesn't need to be killed, why kill it just because the law allows us to?

[barnzey]

This discussion is about Recreational Fishing, not Commercial fishing. Of course commercial fishers have an enlarged catch because they're feeding the 86% of the population who don't fish. But, lets not get side tracked. This topic on discussion is Recreational fishing rule changes.

• Please note the future implementation of new fishing arrangements to achieve recovery of mulloway is not part of the above review.

Written on the Info review page and within the FAQs. The Mulloway discussion paper closed from public review on 16 October 2012. No use bleating like a stuck lamb now that you've missed it, place your focus on something you can change.

2. We are already restricted in terms of size limits with dusky flathead, with only one above 70cm.

My Opinion on the proposed rule changes:
I agree with the changes to reduce bag limits for sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3; having set bag limits of 10, 5 and 2 keeps things simple. Reducing baglimits is a way to increase fish stocks without creating more locked out of areas.

Section 1.4: I believe the lenient baglimits should be adopted. As fishmaniac has pointed out the money spent on boat fuel chasing larger game fish is not worth the dividends if the bag limit is set too low. Sea conditions already limit the amount of times boats can chase these larger fish. Catch rates are highly variable compared to inshore species.

I think reducing the bag limit from 2 tuna over 90cm to 1 tuna over 90cm is ridiculous. You have to get the right currents, the right weather, spend 100s in fuel and bait and you might find them.

Section 1.5: I agree a 20 finfish (not including baitfish) limit per person is plenty! Even if that person only gets out for a fish every few months.

I would also support fin clipping of fish with bag limits under 5 to reduce Illegal fishing for commercial gain.

As for the bag limit changes, I think some of them are ridiculous. Ten legal whiting or 5 legal flathead would feed a family of two adults and three teenagers just once. I feel that one is entitled to keep a couple of feeds for the family if they so desire. We don't all live close to the water or have the opportunity to fish regularly (many are confined to weekends and holidays). Hence, the opportunity to catch and keep a few feeds for the family will be severely curtailed by these changes.

5 (just) legal flathead gives 10 fillets so it would easily feed 5 people, if one of your teenagers came out with you then you would have enough for 2-3 days of fish. That's just one species, nothing says you can't go target bream or whiting after that.

What is the rationale for reducing the size limit for dolphin fish? It was only introduced a few years ago.

The rationale is written in the discussion paper, I won't post it here but you'll find it on page 10. I agree with their deduction.

Perhaps the thing that pisses me off most in this discussion paper is the very last recommendation. That is, to allow bow hunters to target carp. If that is not a sop to the "Fishers" and Shooters party to buy their vote for these proposals then I am a monkey's uncle! How many fishers in NSW are clamouring for the right to shoot arrows at carp?

The waterways are not exclusive to just you or just line fishers, they're used by many other user groups. I can't think of any logical reason why we wouldn't allow bow hunting of carp. It's just another form of 'sight fishing' a declared noxious species.

I saw a huge blue groper yesterday morning, cruising around the kelp beds. Would have been about 90cm long. A lot of fishermen would kill to get their hands on such a fish. If an animal doesn't need to be killed, why kill it just because the law allows us to?

What makes that blue groper more special than a black drummer? Both are great eating fish, both are amazing fighters. Edited May 12, 2013 by Barnzey

[adkel53]

The point about recreational versus commercial fishing regulations is that the pros seem to have very few restrictions applied to them, especially in estuaries, where as we recreational fishers face more and more restrictions on where we fish and what we take. Do the 86% of non fishers have the "right" to consume unsustainably caught fish as many sold in the markets are? There is a lot of other sustainably produced food (including farmed fish and prawns) out there to eat.

Additionally, the pros don't have to catch a few of one species then switch to another . Why should I? I really feel that it is up to me what species I target each trip. Lizards on lures one day, whiting on bait another etc. Why do I need to go prepared for several different methods of fishing if I don't want to? Over time, the biomass of each species that I keep will be much the same as if I am restricted to a small quota of each on each trip.

i live a good hour away from the closest ramps that give access to the places i like to fish. A typical trip would cost me about $50 in car and boat fuel alone. Restricting my catch to 5 x 40cm lizards (that is my own personal size limit) seems rather unfair to me.

Here is another problem with this particular limit. Imagine one has caught and kept 5 small flathead (say low 40s). Then you move on somewhere else and find s few larger ones (say 50-55 cm)? Much more food in these. The temptation for many (assuming they like to fish within the rules) would be to ditch the smaller ones and keep the larger ones. Should we be encouraging that?

I am a keen conservationist and I release lots of legal fish. I sometimes keep my bag limit if I am fortunate enough to catch it (which is rare). At other times I keep enough for my immediate needs and perhaps a few for the freezer to keep me going until my next trip out. I think there are many fishermen and women just like me. We abide by the rules and have our own self imposed ones. These new changes will impact on us far more than they will on the types who fish outside of the rules with little chance of getting caught. Instead of wasting our licence fees and taxes on making these unnecessary changes, NSW Fisheries would achieve far more in terms of fish conservation by employing more compliance officers and properly policing the regulations, bag limits and size limits that are currently in place.

That's my view and i'm sticking to it.