The Good Old Days

[fragmeister]

Hi Raiders,

Found this picture in a very old scrapbook cutting (circa 1940).

This was a few hours catch of tailor for three blokes... probably explains why there are less fish around today.

Funny thing is there was an article along side complaining how the fishing is not a good as it used to be!

Edited September 16, 2015 by fragmeister

[Krispy !]

HAHAHAH wow they're all 50+ cm choppers too, I guess they would've been handing them out to neighbours etc back in those days. But still its an eye opener

[fragmeister]

Here is another one from the same scrap book.

Must be a Queenslander chasing Spaniards on an Alvey!

My guess is they were both from Fraser Island.

[Mike89]

That's incredible. It's sad to think about how fish stocks have been reduced and in some cases depleted over the past century. I guess that's industrialisation for you, though.

[Razzell]

Crazy. I think people seriously underestimate just how badly the oceans have been hit.

A new report put out by ZSL and WWF (two leading conservation organisations) suggests things are worse than suspected. Habitats are destroyed, and some species are down by 50% since the 70s. Tuna and mackerel are down 74%. There's a summary here along with a link to the full report: http://www.biosphereonline.com/2015/09/16/are-the-worlds-oceans-on-the-brink-of-collapse/

Everytime I'm out and struggling to get bites, I do wonder what it would have been like in the early days...

[rockfisherman]

It's just what humans do unfortunately, deplete and exhaust, rape and pillage...

Harry

[pjbink]

A 50% drop, if it's from an unfished state, is nothing to be alarmed about as it is in well within sustainability limits. When fished down to this level fish actually grow faster due to less completion for food and less predation. This creates a surplus which can be harvested. Also gloomy predictions from conservation organisations don't take into account that fisheries managers will take action to curb overfishing. They assume we will drive towards a cliff without taking any evasive action.

[big Neil]

Used to go to South West Rocks every July and catch hundreds of tailor from the rocks, back in the late 70s. Released what we didn't need. My guess would be that you could still catch the same amount of tailor, at the same place and time of year, nowadays. Conservation (preservation) does work...provided we all do the right thing...EVERYBODY. Same everywhere though. I've seen pictures of hundreds of HUGE Murray Cod strung up on a Hills hoist. But the mighty Murray Cod is making a big comeback. Good topic Jim and interesting photos, too.

[Yowie]

Here is another one from the same scrap book.

Must be a Queenslander chasing Spaniards on an Alvey!

My guess is they were both from Fraser Island.

spaniard.jpg

Have seen that photo before (his name might have been John Bethune)

When I fished with Gary Chapman (now deceased) off a central coast beach, we caught some tailor in no time at all. One would hook a fish, the others throw in behind the hooked fish and the idea was to keep a hooked fish in the water, as the other tailor would hang about with the bait scraps in the water. Garfish was the bait then, pillies were not used by many fishos at all as they were too soft (pillies are now salted to toughen the meat)

[Razzell]

A 50% drop, if it's from an unfished state, is nothing to be alarmed about as it is in well within sustainability limits. When fished down to this level fish actually grow faster due to less completion for food and less predation. This creates a surplus which can be harvested. Also gloomy predictions from conservation organisations don't take into account that fisheries managers will take action to curb overfishing. They assume we will drive towards a cliff without taking any evasive action.

From the 70s, when stocks were already depleted. It's important to note that this is global - not something even remotely within the jurisdiction of local fisheries. I personally think that Australian coastal waters are quite well looked after (given the circumstances), but the same can't be said everywhere.

The gloomy predictions are based on the cold, hard numbers. They don't lie. Things aren't looking good. By even the most conservative estimates, we passed the threshold to take evasive action on a global scale some time ago. We've created a snowball that's unlikely to stop now, even if we significantly change our ways. For example, it is likely that the ocean temperatures will be too warm to support coral reefs by 2050 (and there's not a lot we can do about it). So even though Australian fisheries do a great job and more people understand the importance of looking after the seas, it might not mean squat pretty soon.

[pjbink]

Numbers can lie, Razzell. The gloomy predictions don't consider that overfishing is usually reversible, often only taking a few years. Boris Worm created a storm of criticism when he said that all the World's fish stocks will be depleted by 2048 by misusing so called cold hard numbers. He used catches as a guide to numbers. If you applied that methodology to stocks on a recovery trajectory it would show they were depleted also. He also didn't take into account countries with well managed fisheries like the USA, Iceland, NZ and Australia.

Global warming and coral reefs is a different topic, but the 'no coral reefs by 2050' does have a suspicious ring to it.

[Razzell]

Numbers can lie, Razzell. The gloomy predictions don't consider that overfishing is usually reversible, often only taking a few years. Boris Worm created a storm of criticism when he said that all the World's fish stocks will be depleted by 2048 by misusing so called cold hard numbers. He used catches as a guide to numbers. If you applied that methodology to stocks on a recovery trajectory it would show they were depleted also. He also didn't take into account countries with well managed fisheries like the USA, Iceland, NZ and Australia.

Global warming and coral reefs is a different topic, but the 'no coral reefs by 2050' does have a suspicious ring to it.

Numbers can be made to lie, true, but they're not inherently dishonest - they're just numbers. Both sides of the argument use their malleability to push their message, but one side more often uses results from flawed studies and cherry picked data. As it stands, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that we're about to undergo a significant period of change. We're seeing it happen now, hence the existence of this thread.

Should anyone actually be interested, I'd be happy to link comprehensively to the evidence.

[pjbink]

Numbers can be made to lie, true, but they're not inherently dishonest - they're just numbers. Both sides of the argument use their malleability to push their message, but one side more often uses results from flawed studies and cherry picked data. As it stands, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that we're about to undergo a significant period of change. We're seeing it happen now, hence the existence of this thread.

Should anyone actually be interested, I'd be happy to link comprehensively to the evidence.

The thread is about a decline in fish stocks, specifically in Australia. Is this the evidence you refer to?

[fragmeister]

Billfisher is right of course that fish catches are the often erroneously used as the measure of fish stocks but they do apply some corrective "science".

However, they don't simply say fish numbers are depleted because less were caught nor do they say fish numbers are on the increase because more were caught although they certainly did as recently as the early 90's in the North Altantic Cod fisheries with devastating results.

This "science" is supposed to be accurate after factors like quotas, fishing grounds open to fishing, the number fishing vessels licensed to fish, active trawling hours , actual target species etc are all factored in. They can also extrapolate, given the various ages of the fish and their proportional numbers within the catch, as to whether the fish populations are expanding or contracting but, at best, it is questionable science and always has been.

Little is known about the tipping point for fish population crashes and even less about the recovery. The scientists are still confused and surprised about the slowness of the recovery of cod stock in some areas of the North Atlantic and even more surprised about the significant recovery in other areas thought to have been unrecoverable.

Again, statistical error and poor or misleading science is rampant. Some scientist quote cod stocks on the Newfoundland Grand Banks are up to 69% since 2007 and that sounds impressive but that actually equates to only 10 % of the original stocks. Unfortunately science is often funded by interest groups as it always has been. Studies commissioned by left wing governments will be different from those commissioned by right wing governments in the same country because they have different voters to placate. Worse still, science funded by the commercial fishing or environmental interest groups will be very suspect... (anyone recall the tobacco industry funded cancer research!).

On the positive side it does appear that the fish stocks are able to recover from depletion rates way below what are being imposed on them now. Atlantic Cod in the North West Atlantic fishery for example were estimated to be down to 1% of the original stock by 1992 Yet they have made a significant comeback. The scientist did not predict this. No one predicted this.

For me the science is just as questionable on both sides but there is one thing that is very apparent and I know it is just anecdotal evidence but in my mind it is a damn site more reliable than the "science" ... I have to work harder to catch fish than I used to!

No one will convince me that fish numbers are not seriously down from when I was a 5 year old boy catching tailor with a hand caster in a few feet of water off North Cronulla beach while bait-fish (soon to be bait!) beached themselves in droves to get away from the marauding predators.

But does this mean we are on the brink of disaster? I am not convinced on that score.

Do we need to reduce quotas? No sure I trust any of the science enough to judge so I would tend to go as conservative as possible given people have to be fed and people need jobs.

I guess the important bit is that its on our minds and that would tend to bring out the catch and release in all of us...can't be a bad thing.

Cheers

Jim

Edited September 17, 2015 by fragmeister

[zook2001]

Used to go to South West Rocks every July and catch hundreds of tailor from the rocks, back in the late 70s. Released what we didn't need. My guess would be that you could still catch the same amount of tailor, at the same place and time of year, nowadays. Conservation (preservation) does work...provided we all do the right thing...EVERYBODY. Same everywhere though. I've seen pictures of hundreds of HUGE Murray Cod strung up on a Hills hoist. But the mighty Murray Cod is making a big comeback. Good topic Jim and interesting photos, too.

I remember visiting Port Macquarie during the seventies, the white bait run had to be seen to believed, the bait was there and the tailor followed. It was case of picking up stranded bait and catching as many tailor and bream as you like. People see the big predators disappearing but its often the bottom of the food chain that being hit hard by the pros, just look at the massive comeback in Botany Bay once they stopped prawn trawling .

Charles

[Scratchie]

Growing population=less fish. Period!!!

[SgtBundy]

The impacts vary depending on where the hit is on the food chain. There was somewhere in the US south west coast where whaling had removed the biggest predators for a large species of squid. Once the whales were gone the squid numbers rocketed to the point they started destroying other species because of their extremely aggressive breeding and food intake. That effect reverberates through the whole food chain. I am sure people who study this sort of stuff can be wrong, but they have spent more time learning about it than I have so they are probably worth listening too.

I know my Dad has lots of photos from growing up around Kempsey and going fishing at Hat Head with his grandfather. Tarps covered in tailor and lots of land based mackeral and tuna. Photos are not scanned the best - sorry.

Edited September 17, 2015 by SgtBundy

[Ryder]

Here is another one from the same scrap book.

Must be a Queenslander chasing Spaniards on an Alvey!

My guess is they were both from Fraser Island.

spaniard.jpg

I think that's a young Jack Alvey.

I have my grandfathers letters to my mum that mention catching 150 flathead in a week at Forster in the 70s.

They were retired pensioners, growing veggies , fishing, and sharing the catch and the veg around the neighbours, plus the home brew. The neighbours would return the favour.

Whenever a relative went up Grandad would send them home with a box full of frozen fillets.

They definitely took every advantage they could.

Money didn't grow on trees, but Oysters grew on rocks.

[fragmeister]

Here is a link to an article which, although not from a scientific source, does put an interesting spin on the subject.

[Guest no one]

Growing population=less fish. Period!!!

Growing population + modern technology + finance companies = more people with accessibility to boats & fishing

Non enforcement of fisheries laws + Rec fishers not giving a crap about legal limits and sizes = less fish

Cookie Monster + Ed = less fish!

I love these political conversations. Keep it clean, if you want to debate go ahead but listen and take on the opposing views and don't just look at this with tunnel vision. No wars are won on Internet forums!

[pjbink]

A interesting study was done to look at the abundance of fish stocks going back to the first settlement. It would appear that there was not a super abundance of fish. There were accounts of aborigines being short of fish, especially in the winter months, despite being adept fishermen:

Historical insights into coastal NSW fish populations

and their fisheries

Julian G Pepperell

Pepperell Research & Consulting Pty Ltd

Conclusions

This study can only offer a first glimpse at what the coastal fish populations and the

coastal ecology which supported them might have been like prior to European

settlement in New South Wales. The US study referred to in the Introduction

identified ecological changes most likely wrought by humans which had distinct

effects on coastal ecosystems, including mass hunting of turtles and harvesting of

vast oyster reefs.

The present study has considered the earliest information available from the first

Europeans, which by its nature, is confined to Sydney and surrounds. 100 years

later, the evidence given in the Royal Commission perhaps allows some

assessment of changes to that time.

One conclusion from this review that seems reasonably clear is that fish

populations at the time of first European settlement, at least in the Sydney area,

were not as abundant as we might have imagined. There are numerous accounts of

the unpredictability of catches, with long periods of relative scarcity, especially in

winter months. Certainly, catches of fish were not bounteous enough to ever have a

glut, or to permit preserving by salting or smoking on any scale. It could be that this

apparent poor supply of fish was due to the ineptitude of the first fishers, but this

seems somewhat unlikely, given that so much effort was put into fishing for food in

the very early days of the colony.

Overviewing all of the material presented, it is difficult to be certain about any major

shifts in fish abundance through time. In fact, no major disasters appear to have

occurred. However, some specific changes in some species, and in species

diversity may possibly be discerned. These would include:

The apparent disappearance of very large snapper from reefs and headlands close

to Sydney. These obviously old fish, referred to as ‘native snapper’ in the 1880s,

seem certain to have disappeared, presumably due to simple growth overfishing.

Black rock cod appear to have been very common, up to quite large sizes. This

species is now fully protected due to its population being badly depleted, especially

along central NSW. Grey nurse sharks also appear to have been caught quite

commonly inside both Sydney Harbour and Botany Bay where they no longer

occur. And the bluefish, Girella cyanea, also seems to have completely

disappeared from the NSW coast, at one stage being reasonably common. Finally,

it mud oysters were very abundant in Botany Bay, and were a staple food source

for local aborigines when Cook paid his fleeting visit. This is almost certainly not

the case today.

[fragmeister]

Hmmm... I do wonder how many fish there are in " an abundance"!

It seems from that article that "an abundance" was probably an expectation and a comparison against traditional fishing grounds for the English. You can see this is the reference to "salting and smoking on any scale" which is an obvious reference to Atlantic cod and haddock fisheries where fish were reportedly in such abundance that, according to early historians, you could "walk across the bay on their backs". Nonsense of course but it does point out that hearsay and second or third hand anecdotal information is rarely accurate.

All I know is I have fished Sydney Habour for nearly 50 years (as have many of my mates) and in spite of better tackle, better technology and more fishing time we catch less fish and we see less baitfish.

Good science may eventually convince me what constitutes effective management of this resource but no one will convince me of what I have experienced and that is a gradual decline of the fish stocks.

I think 50 years of first hand experience is enough to see a pattern here.

Edited September 18, 2015 by fragmeister

[fragmeister]

Growing population + modern technology + finance companies = more people with accessibility to boats & fishing

Non enforcement of fisheries laws + Rec fishers not giving a crap about legal limits and sizes = less fish

Cookie Monster + Ed = less fish!

I love these political conversations. Keep it clean, if you want to debate go ahead but listen and take on the opposing views and don't just look at this with tunnel vision. No wars are won on Internet forums!

No worries Ed. Happy to cop a prod from the Mods if I get out of line!

[Yowie]

All I know is I have fished Sydney Habour for nearly 50 years (as have many of my mates) and in spite of better tackle, better technology and more fishing time we catch less fish and we see less baitfish.

Good science may eventually convince me what constitutes effective management of this resource but no one will convince me of what I have experienced and that is a gradual decline of the fish stocks.

I think 50 years of first hand experience is enough to see a pattern here.

Agree with you.

Have fished Port Hacking for over 50 years (Yowie Bay wharf as a youngster then about 1968 onwards with my own tinnie). Some species have declined, some are fairly stable.

[pjbink]

From the 70s, when stocks were already depleted. It's important to note that this is global - not something even remotely within the jurisdiction of local fisheries. I personally think that Australian coastal waters are quite well looked after (given the circumstances), but the same can't be said everywhere.

The gloomy predictions are based on the cold, hard numbers. They don't lie. Things aren't looking good. By even the most conservative estimates, we passed the threshold to take evasive action on a global scale some time ago. We've created a snowball that's unlikely to stop now, even if we significantly change our ways. For example, it is likely that the ocean temperatures will be too warm to support coral reefs by 2050 (and there's not a lot we can do about it). So even though Australian fisheries do a great job and more people understand the importance of looking after the seas, it might not mean squat pretty soon.

Actually the WWF figures show that fish stocks have been stable for the last 30 years, and the declines were prior to that:

http://fishingnewsinternational.com/marine-populations-unchanged-for-almost-30-years/

The report states that 61% of commercial fish stocks are fully exploited misleadingly implying that these stocks are overfished and not sustainably exploited,” said Europêche Managing Director Kathryn Stack. “In fact, if we look at the FAO report in question, it clearly states that over 70% of global fish stocks are within biologically sustainable levels (below or at MSY levels i.e. full exploitation, which incidentally is the objective of the CFP and many RFMOs by 2020)**. It is unacceptable that an organisation such as WWF can be allowed to distort information which has a huge impact on the fishing sector’s reputation.”

The report has also been widely criticised for its inaccuracies with Australian Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture Richard Colbeck labelling it as ‘one of a string of misleading campaigns aimed at scaring people into making donations, rather than educating the public.’

The statistics used change spectacularly when the changes are unweighted.

“It has been previously pointed out this week that the apparent huge declines are in fact linked to other species,” Kathryn Stack explained. “So the combination of a huge drop in one particular species of bird and a healthy fish population would result in a huge drop in both species, which is not necessarily the case.”

Edited September 29, 2015 by billfisher