'Trophy Flathead' code of practice

[kiwicraig]

Reading tonight that DPI have released a Code of Practice for the handling of big flatties. Here's the article I was reading. 

Sounds all very sensible to me though I will usually release flathead over about 60cm personally.

[Wellzy94]

To be honest, it sounds like "better handling practices" in general, not just with trophy flathead. I'd encourage everyone to follow similar procedures with all fish they catch.

Cheers,

Wellzy

[cameldownunder]

I think the upper limit is counter-productive. I share the idea that the "really big" female flat-head are obsolete, eat more then what they contribute, and weaken the genetic pool of the flat-head species, which could in turn have a negative impact of the survival rate of the species.

[Razzell]

Hi Camel,

The idea is that they're the cream of the crop in terms of flathead. They've evaded predators, disease, and fisherman so far! So by allowing them the chance to breed, the idea is that 'better' flatties will be reproduced, giving the species the greatest chance of survival in a heavily pressured environment. 

The same thinking is applied within conservation in all species. 

 

[Flickn Mad]

6 hours ago, cameldownunder said:

I think the upper limit is counter-productive. I share the idea that the "really big" female flat-head are obsolete, eat more then what they contribute, and weaken the genetic pool of the flat-head species, which could in turn have a negative impact of the survival rate of the species.

Where does the idea that really big female flathead are obsolete come from, do they not yealed a heap of eggs. 

Regardless the reasonable chance to catch a metre  flatty I would have thought might be a fantastic selling point for rec fishing. The more rec fishers the more influence we might have in fighting off the ever growing ever devious animal liberationists. 

[macman]

Lets hope that any approach regarding slot sizes is based on some sort of science and not just how fishermen feel about it. Responsible fish handling should definitely be encouraged, especially if people purport to be into catch and release. This idea of catching good fish and putting them down in the dirt for a photo  does my head in really. I think it's a bit of a wank the code of practice thing, but the counter is that if it helps a number of people treat the fish better, increase survival rates etc, then its a good piece of education.

 

Matt

[Yowie]

As Matt stated, dropping fish onto the dirt or sand to take a photo, then letting them go, is not good as it damages the slime and scales of the fish - nets don't help either, but knotless ones are better at reducing damage. As for the larger fish of many species, there is no other way of landing them other than in a net.

If you are experienced, you can grab a flattie under the head (practice with a dead one to find the correct hold). I have grabbed them up to 60cm from the water (that size needed a bit of caution) but as for the big mothers, would not recommend it. The smaller ones are easier as they don't have a big head to swing about.

[SquidMarks]

No doubts about the importance of fish handling if said fish is to be released.

Regarding trophy flathead... it legal to keep them so its really up to the individual as to whether or not they would like to release the fish.

I have only ever kept 1 female over 70 (my first one) and have released all subsequent fish, often to the sounds of 'your not going to release that are you?' by my fishermen friends. Since i own the boat, i get to choose the fishing spots and techniques and needless to say, if im fishing with a mate who will keep a flattie which is over 70cm i choose not to target flatties with him/them!

 

 

[Matt]

Interstingly I am off to Tuross next week to target Flathead (as well as do some prawning/crabbing).  I wouldn't mind assisting with the research aspect however there doesn't seem to be too much info on how, maybe a little early yet?

The concept of a 'Code of Practise' seems a little off though, this isn't a montiored, televised sport nor a tournament so in my head it seems more like something that boosts the ego's of a small number of fisho's.  Something to brag about (I may be way off but it was the first thing I thought of).   Nearly everyone I encounter on the water generally treats big Flathead well now days and I doubt the implementation of a Code of Practise will change the views of those who treat fish badly anyway.

Although I 100% agree with Matty about its potential to boost awereness.

Not sure I agree with the notion about big Flathead being obsolete, I thought studies have shown that the amount of eggs the release into the system is proportionally massive?

 

Cheers

Windy

[cameldownunder]

On 3/21/2017 at 9:07 PM, Flickn Mad said:

Where does the idea that really big female flathead are obsolete come from, do they not yealed a heap of eggs. 

Regardless the reasonable chance to catch a metre  flatty I would have thought might be a fantastic selling point for rec fishing. The more rec fishers the more influence we might have in fighting off the ever growing ever devious animal liberationists. 

The idea is that a differentiated gene pool is the key to survival. The enemy of it is inbreeding.

If you have a decade old Flat-head, that produces offspring since years, chances of offspring of this flat-head breeding with each other is high, leading to a weakened gene-pool, and making them more susceptible to environmental changes.

Also it is my assumption that such a >1m specimen eats the same as 2 smaller females, that are already capable of laying eggs.

So I don't understand why people are happy to take younger, less "hungry", with a better gene pool specimens, but not the old lady?

I think the reality is, that >1m flat-head are not as tasty as say 60cm one's, and the oh so noble fisherman returns the "smelly" fish with the excuse of returning a breeding mama back to the water.

[trigunner54]

4 hours ago, cameldownunder said:

The idea is that a differentiated gene pool is the key to survival. The enemy of it is inbreeding.

If you have a decade old Flat-head, that produces offspring since years, chances of offspring of this flat-head breeding with each other is high, leading to a weakened gene-pool, and making them more susceptible to environmental changes.

Also it is my assumption that such a >1m specimen eats the same as 2 smaller females, that are already capable of laying eggs.

So I don't understand why people are happy to take younger, less "hungry", with a better gene pool specimens, but not the old lady?

I think the reality is, that >1m flat-head are not as tasty as say 60cm one's, and the oh so noble fisherman returns the "smelly" fish with the excuse of returning a breeding mama back to the water.

a 1m plus flathead would release more then 10 times the eggs as thec2 smaller females. and the young would also have better inherited genes which  would allow for there survival. and when you have a population size that large, inbreeding rarely happens so gene pool doesnt really get weaker.

[Matt]

Thats a pretty inflammatory statement there cameldownunder?  Anyway, here are a few studies that are worth having a quick scan of:

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/545702/FFRS-101_Gray-and-Barnes-2008.pdf

https://www.csu.edu.au/research/ilws/publications/ilws-reports/2015/Hicks-et-al-Fecundity-and-egg-quality-of-dusky-flathead.pdf

 

According to those studies, females mature later and larger than males and if I read it correctly larger females are vastly more fecund than smaller ones, even allowing for larger size.

Now about weakening the gene pool by NOT taking larger females, quick question:

Prior to heavy rec fishing and commercial fishing of our estuaries (ie, before Aus was colonised for example), how were big females removed from the gene pool?  They are an apex predator apart from Mulloway and Sharks in an estuary? 

 

Cheers

Windy

 

[cameldownunder]

2 hours ago, Matt said:

According to those studies, females mature later and larger than males and if I read it correctly larger females are vastly more fecund than smaller ones, even allowing for larger size.

Now about weakening the gene pool by NOT taking larger females, quick question:

Prior to heavy rec fishing and commercial fishing of our estuaries (ie, before Aus was colonised for example), how were big females removed from the gene pool?  They are an apex predator apart from Mulloway and Sharks in an estuary?

i did read the opposite:

"dusky flathead egg quality and relative fecundity did not change with body size."

That's a good read. The scary part is that only 50% of female flat-heads are mature at 57 cm. So if one is capable ( and this should be part of the knowledge ) of discerning females, no female under 70 should be taken. And no more then 1 female should be taken, if any at all. Best would be to only keep males.

For the egg production,with

"Estimates of fecundity for dusky flat-head range from 294,000 to 3,948,000 eggs" and

"to 4,793,077 eggs in a 764 mm female."

One could assume that a female of 80cm has peaked with the egg production.

In regards to Pre colonization, I can't say what it was. Maybe there were more sharks in the estuaries, maybe there was more fish, who allowed coexistence of both smaller and colossal females, maybe male flat-heads have preference in smaller, better gene-pooled flat-heads.

Maybe all those eggs of the big females, never gets fertilized by a male, and all this caring about the big mamas, is not helping the species. Maybe helping the Freshly fertile female flat-heads, by removing the food and territory competition ( remove big mamas ) would be better.

 

 

[cameldownunder]

3 hours ago, trigunner54 said:

a 1m plus flathead would release more then 10 times the eggs as thec2 smaller females

Apparently not:

"Estimates of fecundity for dusky flat-head range from 294,000 to 3,948,000 eggs" and

"to 4,793,077 eggs in a 764 mm female."

I am pretty sure that 1M plus flat-head eats more then 2 76cm one's.

From http://goldcoastsportfishingclub.com.au/interesting-info-on-dusky-flattie-age-length-and-weight/

and figure 1.7 of http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/545702/FFRS-101_Gray-and-Barnes-2008.pdf

80 cm fish is 3.8kg , 1m fish is 7.8 kg. If what the fish eats, is in relation to it's body weight, then 1m flat-head eats as much as 2 80cm.

Considering that a 80 cm female produces ~5mio eggs, which apparently is the highest range of produced eggs, I prefer having two 80 cm females swimming around then one of 1m.

[macman]

Windy, great to see you out and about. Let it slide go fishing, pointless getting into a to and fro on Fishraider. You know what you know and feel  what you feel , others can please themselves  you still catching the biggest fish when friends take you out with them?