It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2011 at 11:53pm:

All in all, I still shake my head at the amount of Recreational Fisherman Fishing in restricted areas ...even in full sight of us Diving.

Do you let them know it is a no take zone?

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2011 at 7:42am:

Quote: All in all, I still shake my head at the amount of Recreational Fisherman Fishing in restricted areas ...even in full sight of us Diving. Do you let them know it is a no take zone?

Seems unlikely given the heavy enforcement and considerable resources. Although big deal and good on them if they get away with it.  

pjb05 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2011 at 9:26am:

freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2011 at 7:42am: Quote: All in all, I still shake my head at the amount of Recreational Fisherman Fishing in restricted areas ...even in full sight of us Diving. Do you let them know it is a no take zone? Seems unlikely given the heavy enforcement and considerable resources. Although big deal and good on them if they get away with it.

So you encourage this sort of thing?

Do you encourage people to exceed bag limts, minimum sizes etc?

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2011 at 9:40am:

pjb05 wrote on Jan 5th, 2011 at 9:26am: freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2011 at 7:42am: [quote]All in all, I still shake my head at the amount of Recreational Fisherman Fishing in restricted areas ...even in full sight of us Diving. Do you let them know it is a no take zone? Seems unlikely given the heavy enforcement and considerable resources. Although big deal and good on them if they get away with it.

So you encourage this sort of thing?

For all the reasons outlined in this forum - it doesn't bother me. Though given the athour's previous misinformation, I doubt the veracity of the claim.

Do you encourage people to exceed bag limts, minimum sizes etc.

No, but they are actual fisheries management measures.  

pjb05 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2011 at 9:52am:

For all the reasons outlined in this forum - it doesn't bother me.

Would you respond with this in real life:


Quote:

Although big deal and good on them if they get away with it.

?

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2011 at 10:24am:

pjb05 wrote on Jan 5th, 2011 at 9:52am: For all the reasons outlined in this forum - it doesn't bother me. Would you respond with this in real life: Quote: Although big deal and good on them if they get away with it. ?

Just my feeling FD. There is no need to seize onto it like a drowning man and start a whole new thread.

I thought you supported marine parks in some circumstances? Would that change how you felt about poaching?

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2011 at 11:04am:

I thought you supported marine parks in some circumstances? Would that change how you felt about poaching?

Obviously. Though the penalties should be in line with other offences like bag and size limits.

Quote:

All in all, I still shake my head at the amount of Recreational Fisherman Fishing in restricted areas ...even in full sight of us Diving. Do you let them know it is a no take zone?

Depends upon the 'authority' upon the boat i'm on and my 'local area'.
Other than this - my mates and I have succeeded once in pretending to be 'Rangers' and confiscated gear from illigal fishers. We had to reurn the gear once the Rangers turned up laughing ;D because they continued to use 'hand-lines' hours after we told em to leave and were busted by the Rangers themselves. In the end, the Rangers rang to tell us we can keep the gear because the culprits couldn't pay the entire fine. We said "bin em" as we prefer to SpearFish which is more selective and responsible ...these days.
We were warned though that 'impersonations' are illegal as well, so we just yell out "Efin knobheads" rather than encroach upon the official duty. But Rangers have my full support and do a great job, even though they are extremely short staffed.

pjb05 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2011 at 11:10am:

freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2011 at 11:04am: I thought you supported marine parks in some circumstances? Would that change how you felt about poaching? Obviously. Though the penalties should be in line with other offences like bag and size limits.

So which marine parks would you oppose fishing in?


Quote:

We were warned though that 'impersonations' are illegal as well, so we just yell out "Efin knobheads" rather than encroach upon the official duty.

You don't have to impersonate a ranger to let people know. They may simply be ignorant. Or a friend of PJs.

Quote:

All in all, I still shake my head at the amount of Recreational Fisherman Fishing in restricted areas ...even in full sight of us Diving. Do you let them know it is a no take zone?

Depends upon the 'authority' upon the boat i'm on and my 'local area'.
Other than this - my mates and I have succeeded once in pretending to be 'Rangers' and confiscated gear from illigal fishers. We had to reurn the gear once the Rangers turned up laughing ;D because they continued to use 'hand-lines' hours after we told em to leave and were busted by the Rangers themselves. In the end, the Rangers rang to tell us we can keep the gear because the culprits couldn't pay the entire fine. We said "bin em" as we prefer to SpearFish which is more selective and responsible ...these days.

Yes It's wise you put that proviso in considering spearfishing nearly wiped out groper and the GNS. I don't see the sport in spearing a fish either.

We were warned though that 'impersonations' are illegal as well, so we just yell out "Efin knobheads" rather than encroach upon the official duty. But Rangers have my full support and do a great job, even though they are extremely short staffed.

Yes those poor public sevants. They have have such tough working conditions.

Quote:

Yes It's wise you put that proviso in considering spearfishing nearly wiped out groper and the GNS. I don't see the sport in spearing a fish either.

Yes indeed - killing species a 'Sport' (for trophy) ...not the best of human behaviours, let alone achievements. ::)
I'm impressed with NZ Spearfishing attitudes of late - they are taking on the responsibility of protecting their livelihoods (well, their activity) for the long-term and Trophy Comps are becoming a thing of the past.
Now they are promoting 'their' territories as been the most abundant to spear within comfortably. I hope it catches on over here.


Quote:

You don't have to impersonate a ranger to let people know. They may simply be ignorant. Or a friend of PJs.

I just let em know I don't agree with their activity, especially if it ain't my local Illawarra area. A lot of Fisherman do this, although a lot mroe Fisherman go for the illegal areas because they know bigger and more fish resides there.
I'm unsure about the legalities of taking matter's further regarding intervention with someone fishing in illegal areas?


Quote:

Yes those poor public sevants. They have have such tough working conditions.

Shame they can't shoot Poachers on the spot like African Rangers do.
Even this remedy has failed though - as their are no more 'Big Tusker' Elephants left in Africa.  ::)

Its like watching a greedy kid try to shove the entire birthday cake into his nouth sometimes ...it just makes things plain 'sick'. ::)

...gotta go to work again.
>:(

[]
Quote:

[quote]You don't have to impersonate a ranger to let people know. They may simply be ignorant. Or a friend of PJs.

I just let em know I don't agree with their activity, especially if it ain't my local Illawarra area. A lot of Fisherman do this, although a lot mroe Fisherman go for the illegal areas because they know bigger and more fish resides there.

More likely these were popular fishing areas before they were taken away by marine parks. There is no evidence yet of more and bigger fish in NSW marine parks.

I'm unsure about the legalities of taking matter's further regarding intervention with someone fishing in illegal areas?


Quote:

Yes those poor public sevants. They have have such tough working conditions.

Shame they can't shoot Poachers on the spot like African Rangers do.
Even this remedy has failed though - as their are no more 'Big Tusker' Elephants left in Africa.  ::)

You haven't fallen for FD's big lie have you? Ie that marine parks are the only thing standing in the way of depletion of our fish stocks?

Back from work...


Quote:

You haven't fallen for FD's big lie have you? Ie that marine parks are the only thing standing in the way of depletion of our fish stocks?

On the contrary PJ, I dive and 'see' the difference of 'dive sites' where there is a lot of fishing and minimal fishing. Batemans Bay is a good example where the areas heavily fished are nothing more than empty urching barrens and the protected areas have some sense of a natural setting inhabited with fish ...mostly nursery fish (feeling protected I guess>?). Just beyond the viz of Divers though you can just catch a glimpse of the 'big' fish which are more 'flighty' in their behaviour.

So you have 'areas' that are of benefit to Aquatic Life and if you look at the Gravel Loader at Bass Point or Rapid Jetty (SA) - you will see what 'Artificial Reefs' could do to provide 'structures' that are beneficiary. Go to Tathra Wharf or Merimbula Wharf or any wharf and you will see schools of fish underneath the wharf but they never go out beyond its protection to nibble the bait.

So you have beneficiary 'areas' and 'structures' - the 3rd step would be 'beneficiary Fishing methods' that don't trawl the sea floor into desert wastelands, etc, etc or non-selective net/line catching that catch a 70% throw-back stock (that hardly ever survive).

Structures/Artificial Reefs: You see a lot of great Aquatic photos coming out these days, but there is a lot to listen to underwater too.
Fish can 'hear' a Bommie up to 30km away ...thats how they find their way across vast expanses of sand to another Bommie. They don't use a Sextant, thats for sure. They listen to the buzz of activity that the Bommie is offering and Fish are incredibly social creatures - they make their way there. Why a Bommie? Why do people build and flock to Pyramids, let alone the concept of a City? American Divers put all sorts of things into Quarries that are flooded - planes, trains and automobils = why? Because they need 'stimulation'. Fish need stimulation too ...especially when it comes to breeding. Nothing worse than seeing a fish go round and round and round in a pen like a docile autistic 'thing'. Pens are the answer that 'civilised' people can only offer to compensate for the 'natural' world they have ruined. Parks/Sanctuaries/Zones are what 'natural' people can offer instead.
You tell me which you prefer?

I think we have experienced 100 years of people taking as much as they can, even beyond the term 'need', from the seas and oceans - and putting only 'rubbish' back in return.
I think times are changing for the better and like all things 'evolutionary' - I kinda pity those fishermen who still live in the past and can't see their own 'extinction' ahead.

[]Back from work...


Quote:

You haven't fallen for FD's big lie have you? Ie that marine parks are the only thing standing in the way of depletion of our fish stocks?

On the contrary PJ, I dive and 'see' the difference of 'dive sites' where there is a lot of fishing and minimal fishing. Batemans Bay is a good example where the areas heavily fished are nothing more than empty urching barrens and the protected areas have some sense of a natural setting inhabited with fish ...mostly nursery fish (feeling protected I guess>?). Just beyond the viz of Divers though you can just catch a glimpse of the 'big' fish which are more 'flighty' in their behaviour.

Rubbish. There is no evidence the Bateman's Bay area was overfished before the MP was established. Even the MPA's 'science' paper admits that. To asssess a difference between green zones and fished zones you need years of careful scientific study - not just an untrained marine park advocate seeing what he wants to see.  

So you have 'areas' that are of benefit to Aquatic Life and if you look at the Gravel Loader at Bass Point or Rapid Jetty (SA) - you will see what 'Artificial Reefs' could do to provide 'structures' that are beneficiary. Go to Tathra Wharf or Merimbula Wharf or any wharf and you will see schools of fish underneath the wharf but they never go out beyond its protection to nibble the bait.

So you have beneficiary 'areas' and 'structures' - the 3rd step would be 'beneficiary Fishing methods' that don't trawl the sea floor into desert wastelands, etc, etc or non-selective net/line catching that catch a 70% throw-back stock (that hardly ever survive).

There are large areas of NSW where fish trawling is banned as part of normal fisheries management - you don't need marine parks to ban trawling.

Structures/Artificial Reefs: You see a lot of great Aquatic photos coming out these days, but there is a lot to listen to underwater too.
Fish can 'hear' a Bommie up to 30km away ...thats how they find their way across vast expanses of sand to another Bommie. They don't use a Sextant, thats for sure. They listen to the buzz of activity that the Bommie is offering and Fish are incredibly social creatures - they make their way there. Why a Bommie? Why do people build and flock to Pyramids, let alone the concept of a City? American Divers put all sorts of things into Quarries that are flooded - planes, trains and automobils = why? Because they need 'stimulation'. Fish need stimulation too ...especially when it comes to breeding. Nothing worse than seeing a fish go round and round and round in a pen like a docile autistic 'thing'. Pens are the answer that 'civilised' people can only offer to compensate for the 'natural' world they have ruined. Parks/Sanctuaries/Zones are what 'natural' people can offer instead.
You tell me which you prefer?

Strawman. Where not overfished to start with. Even with a regime of marine parks remember that most of the ocean is still open to fishing. Also most NSW fish and their larvae are highly mobile to the protection given by marine parks is limited.

I think we have experienced 100 years of people taking as much as they can, even beyond the term 'need', from the seas and oceans - and putting only 'rubbish' back in return.
I think times are changing for the better and like all things 'evolutionary' - I kinda pity those fishermen who still live in the past and can't see their own 'extinction' ahead.

Your all rhetoric and no substance.

I think PJ that you don't wanna admit that for 100 years Fishing has 'stuffed up' by taking it a little too far. Ok a 'lot' too far and still do.

but in your defence, there hasn't been anyone out there to stop em and wisen them up, until now - let alone implement situations to 'proliferate' aquatic species in their wild habitats.

date=1294278949]I think PJ that you don't wanna admit that for 100 years Fishing has 'stuffed up' by taking it a little too far. Ok a 'lot' too far and still do.

There's the little matter of evidence. We are hardly using the resource. NSW waters could support more fishing pressure.  NSW imports 91% of it's seafood. Your creating a false paradigm.  

but in your defence, there hasn't been anyone out there to stop em and wisen them up, until now - let alone implement situations to 'proliferate' aquatic species in their wild habitats.

Most of the effort was removed in the 1990's - and not through the method of marine parks. Once again you are full of rhetoric and short on facts.  

You remind me of one of those Company Doctors who will tell me that my busted leg is just a scratch although my own Doctor has agreed that my leg is 'broken' and I am entitled to Compensation as it was 'work related'.

I would rather believe people like Ben Cropp (via emails), the Taylors (via presentation nights) and Tom Byron (in person) ...who have been around a very long time and all agree that the level of Aquatic Life in all the areas where they have dived (been underwater and seen what Fishing boats fail to see) has diminished considerably.
Than believe a bunch of 'Scientists' that are on the take with their paperwork and say otherwise.

I personally 'think' that Australian waters have 'improved', since the implementation of more stricter Fishing methods, etc
But its like helping someone trying to quit smoking ....after just 3 months of fresh air, they suddenly feel that its ok to light up another fag.

We need Fishing, if not more 'selective' fishing techniques.
(this sums up everything right here ::))

No offence PJ, but Australian Fishing needs to work entirely with Conservational efforts ...and not against, that way both will swim 'across' from the Rip.

You remind me of one of those Company Doctors who will tell me that my busted leg is just a scratch although my own Doctor has agreed that my leg is 'broken' and I am entitled to Compensation as it was 'work related'.

Our fisheries aren't broken, they are in good fettle. I think the quackery is on your side.

I would rather believe people like Ben Cropp (via emails), the Taylors (via presentation nights) and Tom Byron (in person) ...who have been around a very long time and all agree that the level of Aquatic Life in all the areas where they have dived (been underwater and seen what Fishing boats fail to see) has diminished considerably.

Valerie Taylor still holds the women's spearfishing record for Grey Nurse Shark. Looks like she's just trying to atone for past sins.  

Than believe a bunch of 'Scientists' that are on the take with their paperwork and say otherwise.

You started talking about scientific facts now you rather believe a bunch of bubble-heads. Actually it's the scientists who are critical of marine parks that are more independant, eg they are often retired and no longer rely on government funding to make a living.

I personally 'think' that Australian waters have 'improved', since the implementation of more stricter Fishing methods, etc
But its like helping someone trying to quit smoking ....after just 3 months of fresh air, they suddenly feel that its ok to light up another fag.

That shows a lot about what you think about fishing. Unlike smoking if fishing if not overdone it does a lot of good with regard to human wellfare and little harm to marine ecosystems (unlike pollution and degradation).

We need Fishing, if not more 'selective' fishing techniques.
(this sums up everything right here ::))

No offence PJ, but Australian Fishing needs to work entirely with Conservational efforts ...and not against, that way both will swim 'across' from the Rip.

We don't have to accept this on faith or appeal to a bandwagon.

Bear in mind that I think of Sanctuaries/Parks/Zones as something similar to Zoos and Aquariums ...a little bit of nature in a world of civilisation.
The reason being is that we can't ban fishing outright everywhere.
Alas, we can't even reach a 50/50 agreement in the name of "fair's fair", let alone 'equality'.


Ever watch "Survivor" on TV? A good example of 'Civilised' people being very 'unnatural' in many ways.  ::)

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Jan 11^th, 2011 at 7:18pm:

Bear in mind that I think of Sanctuaries/Parks/Zones as something similar to Zoos and Aquariums ...a little bit of nature in a world of civilisation. The reason being is that we can't ban fishing outright everywhere. Alas, we can't even reach a 50/50 agreement in the name of "fair's fair", let alone 'equality'. Ever watch "Survivor" on TV? A good example of 'Civilised' people being very 'unnatural' in many ways.  ::)

What's natural about zoos and aquariums? Your not making much sense. Also fish swim in and out of these sanctuaries (you couldn't otherwise claim any possible benefit from a spillover effect). Also what's fair about embarking on a costly program of inefective marine reserves based on mushy platitudes and opinions.

This might be of interest to those who think marine parks are the greatest gift to civilisation:


http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110110/full/469146a.html


Plans for marine protection highlight science gap
Researchers are scrambling to understand how best to deploy conservation zones.

Daniel Cressey


The reefs of the Phoenix Islands in Kiribati are part of the world’s largest marine protected area.
P. NICKLEN/NAT. GEOGR./GETTYFacing a host of threats including fishery devastation and the destruction of coral reefs, conservationists have increasingly pinned their hopes on marine protected areas (MPAs). More than 5,000 of these sanctuaries, where fishing is controlled to limit its effect on biodiversity, have been set up, mainly in coastal zones. They range in size from less than 10,000 square metres to the vast Phoenix Islands area, part of the Republic of Kiribati in the Pacific Ocean, which tops 400,000 square kilometres.

But, in the rush to safeguard marine ecosystems, there has been little scientific assessment of how to create a successful MPA. With a new wave of MPAs expected to be created in deep-ocean regions in the next few years, scientists are eager to understand how factors such as size and siting can determine a protected area's success or failure.

Tundi Agardy, an environmental consultant based in Colrain, Massachusetts, is the lead author of a paper published in Marine Policy, which warns of a "blind faith" in the ability of MPAs to stem biodiversity loss. She told Nature that she can name only "a handful" of areas that actually work as advertised. Her paper identifies five possible shortcomings in MPAs: many are too small to be effective; they may simply drive fishing into other areas; they create an illusion of protection when none is actually occurring; many are poorly planned or managed; and they can fail all too easily because of environmental degradation of waters just outside the protected area.
"I'd venture a guess that a majority of the world's several thousand MPAs have one flaw or another relating to the five categories we describe," says Agardy. For example, an MPA created to protect the vaquita (Phocoena sinus), a small porpoise found only in the Gulf of California, actually missed a sizeable proportion of the species' core range. The animal's numbers have continued to decline and it is now the most endangered marine mammal in the world2.

"We still need a lot of knowledge to really understand how MPAs work exactly," says Frederic Vandeperre, a marine biologist at the University of the Azores in Horta who last month published an analysis3 of seven southern European MPAs. The study showed that these MPAs can benefit fisheries in adjacent waters, but that the degree of the effect depends heavily on the size of the area and the quality of its management. Vandeperre says that each MPA needs a unique design, depending on its goals. For example, those that explicitly aim to safeguard fishing yields need to cover a larger area.

International waters
Conservationists should approach the design and siting of an MPA as an experiment, he says. "We should maybe create MPAs with different structures, different designs in a controlled way, to be really like an experiment so we can figure out which elements are crucial." This could include variations in size, location, manage­ment strategy, monitoring and proximity to other MPAs.

Understanding the best way to create MPAs is about to become much more important. The 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development set ambitious, internationally agreed targets to establish extensive networks of MPAs around the world by 2012.

This requires the creation of more MPAs outside national boundaries in the high seas, where still less is known about how to make them work. "We have almost no experience of applying marine protected areas to high-seas ecosystems," says Alex Rogers, a conservation ecologist at the University of Oxford, UK. "We don't really know where to put them. We suspect that simply by placing them in places that are particularly sensitive for species we may be able to derive a considerable management benefit, but it's very, very early days at the moment." Rogers is organizing a conference at the Zoological Society of London next month to discuss the design of high-seas protected areas, along with the complex legal and political issues that surround them.

Still, some studies are starting to give clear pointers on the best way to position both coastal and high-seas MPAs. Last month, Mark Christie of Oregon State University in Corvallis and his team published an analysis4 showing that fish larvae — those of the yellow tang (Zebrasoma flavescens) — were successfully dispersing from an MPA to sites up to 180 kilometres away.

"Now we are able to show the larvae can drift to sites outside the MPA and essentially reseed fish stocks significant distances away," says Christie. The result means that by combining information about ocean currents with the genetics of larvae captured from the seas, researchers can identify from where the larvae came. That could help pinpoint — and protect — the most important spawning areas for species such as Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis), says Rogers.

Just a shame we couldn't go back in time
- of a world with plentiful and wild Aquatic Life.
where we could make little "zones" for the Fishermen to be happy in
like babies in a playpen.

Alas, its the other way around - the natural world has to suffer these little Zones as their only (current) hope against overpopulated nations, evil Chefs and numbnuts who, for all their scientific intellectuality - fail to find the commone sense 'zone' known as the "BIG PICTURE".

Maybe we should get the Moslems to impose Ramadan of the Fisheries for a month - NO FISHING. ;D

My brother lived in the Azores for years. Speaks fluent Portuguese (as well as the Brazillian) amongst other Latin tongues. He now works for the Aust Navy. He assures me that all "conservational" efforts have improved the fishing around the islands as well as the Tourism. I tend to believe someone who lives on the sea (as I do under the sea) as much as he does ...rather than some crackpot Scientist still playing with numbers and popularity papers.


Zones may not be perfect, but they are more than a great help for aquatic life (- beyond halting all forms of fishing), like some cruel irony.

Civilised people are so stupid when it comes to the Natural world - no wonder they need Technology to help with their 'autistic' behaviours. :P

Well I gotta go (3rd time unlucky).
Must say PJ ...won't be long before Australian Fisheries will be working for the Australian Conservationists anyway.
;) ;D

FFS, just go already.

How do you know if exceed bag limit or not if you can not identify  the caught fish?

tallowood wrote on Mar 9^th, 2011 at 7:42pm:

How do you know if exceed bag limit or not if you can not identify  the caught fish?

Fisheries provide booklets and stickers with pictures of fish, along with the rules that apply to them. In any case it's like any other law - ingorance is no excuse.

I had some fishes that fisheries inspectors could not identify themselves.

Does it mean they(inspectors) are fraud?

pjb05 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2011 at 7:57pm:

tallowood wrote on Mar 9th, 2011 at 7:42pm: How do you know if exceed bag limit or not if you can not identify  the caught fish? Fisheries provide booklets and stickers with pictures of fish, along with the rules that apply to them. In any case it's like any other law - ingorance is no excuse.

I consider myself reasonably conversant with breeds of fish but have to admit on occasion I have got one which I could not identlfy.

Normally take a picture but do not see this as a problem - who would keep a fish if they didn't know what it was.

In my case they all go back anyway.

Released a 42cm whiting my daughter caught in the lake a few weeks back. (and half a dozern smaller ones).

Illegal fishing is a no!no!

A month back, mate and I dived around Currarong where you can find the Wreck of the Merimbula.
Why would I travel all the way down there for a Dive?
Well because there is less impact of fishing due to greater population and thus, the sponge-gardens, fish and all-round quality of the area is more pristine.
There was x3 boats fishing on the day. I found x5 undersized fish just laying dead upon the sand.
There was x1 boat spear-fishing on the day. I found x1 undersized Kingfish laying dead upon the sand.

...what a pathetic waste of the natural world and (dare I say) 'resources'.

This was 'legal' fishing alas the laws don't cover 'throw-backs', only 'keeps'.

Why should species suffer needlessly and at times, inhumanely ...just because people don't know how to 'get a life' for themselves? ::)

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 4:22pm:

A month back, mate and I dived around Currarong where you can find the Wreck of the Merimbula. Why would I travel all the way down there for a Dive? Well because there is less impact of fishing due to greater population and thus, the sponge-gardens, fish and all-round quality of the area is more pristine. There was x3 boats fishing on the day. I found x5 undersized fish just laying dead upon the sand. There was x1 boat spear-fishing on the day. I found x1 undersized Kingfish laying dead upon the sand. ...what a pathetic waste of the natural world and (dare I say) 'resources'. This was 'legal' fishing alas the laws don't cover 'throw-backs', only 'keeps'. Why should species suffer needlessly and at times, inhumanely ...just because people don't know how to 'get a life' for themselves? ::)

Your somewhat lacking in perspective. Predation in the marine ecosystem is extremely high. Fishermen are just another snout in the trough. For instance the seal colony on Montague Island eats more fish than the entire recreational catch for the area!

Jas, had the kingy been shot?

PJ, I don't think it lacked perspective. Perhaps you were reading something into it that isn't there?

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 5:03pm:

Jas, had the kingy been shot? PJ, I don't think it lacked perspective. Perhaps you were reading something into it that isn't there?

I see your as obtuse as usual FD. What about this phrase (in the context of half a dozen dead fish):

"...what a pathetic waste of the natural world and (dare I say) 'resources'."

I don't see it as a waste if they end up as part of the natural food chain rather than on a plate. It is a waste if they end up washing up on the beach.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 5:32pm:

I don't see it as a waste if they end up as part of the natural food chain rather than on a plate. It is a waste if they end up washing up on the beach.

Is it a "pathetic" waste?

PS: what about the crabs and beachworms?

Yes it is a waste even if the crabs get a feed. It is not good for the ecosystem to cut out an already depleted part of the ecosystem to feed to detritivores.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 6:55pm:

Yes it is a waste even if the crabs get a feed. It is not good for the ecosystem to cut out an already depleted part of the ecosystem to feed to detritivores.

But you don't see it is a waste "if it ends up as part of the natural food chain"? How do can you justify such a distinction between the beach ecosystem and nearby waters.

PS: what evidence do you have that the fisheries of that area are 'depleted'.

Quote:

But you don't see it is a waste "if it ends up as part of the natural food chain"? How do can you justify such a distinction between the beach ecosystem and nearby waters.

It is natural for seals to prey on the fish. It is not natural them them to be hooked/speared and left to rot on the beach. The distinction is that one is a natural part of the food chain (a part that is currently restricted by anthropogenic impacts) the other is not a natuiral part.

Quote:

Jas, had the kingy been shot?

Yeah, right behind the gills. I'm still trying to get the photo of me holding the Kingie and a pretty good anchor (should I take action against the local council for 'permitting' littering?).
I guess the Spearo thought it was 'just' to size, but when it was measured, it was undersized and just tossed back. The fish were all 'untouched' but I'm pretty sure that come night, the dead fish would be scavenged or something.

I understand the essence of the food chain, but this circumstance wasn't even killing fish for an educational facet like Orca do with Skates, Rays and Seals for their young.

I think there are many 'Special' areas of the Marine system that should be Zoned and enforced. I don't think Fishing should be banned, but the methods really do need to be designed to be more selective in regards to both Species, Size (because pulverising just BIG MALES can have a bad side-effect) and Numbers. Spearfishing is already making more 'Conservational' efforts in protecting 'their' Hunting Grounds (so to speak) for the future.

I personally wouldn't mind having the 'Five Islands' off Wollongong/Port Kembla made into a NO TAKE ZONE. Reckon it would yeild more fish after 5 years of recouperation for Fisherman to reap 'Spill-over' ...and I don't mean telling authorities that "The fish dragged me into the Zone."

Australia has traditionally enjoyed the luxury of 'quality' over 'quantity' due to our minimalistic population. But now things are changing, there is more immigration, more 'self-sustaining' popuation growth and the ravages of 'quantity' is making all forms of 'quality' slowly dissapear.

Should Australia 'also' give in to this effect from larger populations and over-populations ...or should we put our foot down and "sorry, but 40 years ago you could Recreationally fish willy-nilly without a care for consequence. But now..."
I don't even think 'Traditional Rights' are a valid excuse ...just about every other culture has had to adapt and adhere to the Rules and Regulations of the Modern day ...so why should a minority of cultures have 'free-range' upon species (especially using non-traditional methods and living in non-traditional ways. :-?).

What use is it to wipe out our species and eco-systems for $$$ from other countries, when in the future that $$$ could fluctuate and become worthless.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 7:44pm:

Quote: But you don't see it is a waste "if it ends up as part of the natural food chain"? How do can you justify such a distinction between the beach ecosystem and nearby waters. It is natural for seals to prey on the fish. It is not natural them them to be hooked/speared and left to rot on the beach. The distinction is that one is a natural part of the food chain (a part that is currently restricted by anthropogenic impacts) the other is not a natuiral part.

It is not any more natural either for the hooked/ speared fish to remain in the ocean, so again, why the distinction?

What evidence do you have the fisheries in the area are 'depleted'?

Are the handful of dead fish a waste or a 'pathetic' waste?

Why is it so hard to answer straightforward questions?  

Quote:

It is not any natural either for the hooked/ speared fish to remain in the ocean

You mean alive, or dead? If you mean dead, I would not consider it significantly less wasteful if the fish ended up on the bottom being picked off by wobbygongs. it is not the beach itself I was referring to, but the impact on the ecosystem.


Quote:

What evidence do you have the fisheries in the area are 'depleted'? Are the handful of dead fish a waste or a 'pathetic' waste? Why is it so hard to answer straightforward questions?

They seemed too silly to bother answering.

quote]It is not any natural either for the hooked/ speared fish to remain in the ocean[/quote]

You mean alive, or dead? If you mean dead, I would not consider it significantly less wasteful if the fish ended up on the bottom being picked off by wobbygongs. it is not the beach itself I was referring to, but the impact on the ecosystem.

I don't think you have a clue what your talking about.


Quote:

What evidence do you have the fisheries in the area are 'depleted'? Are the handful of dead fish a waste or a 'pathetic' waste? Why is it so hard to answer straightforward questions?

They seemed too silly to bother answering.

There your points or go to the heart of your points - you can't just turn around a call them 'silly'.

Yes I can.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 4:08pm:

Yes I can.

And what do you think that makes you look like?

Like someone who doesn't waste his time answering stupid questions.

Oops, too late.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 4:43pm:

Like someone who doesn't waste his time answering stupid questions. Oops, too late.

More like a moron.

How do you think it makes you look promoting illegal fishing?

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 4:47pm:

How do you think it makes you look promoting illegal fishing?

I promote compliance with fisheries management rules. In fact I self impose tighter rules/ standards on myself - eg releasing legal sized fish.  

pjb05 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2011 at 9:26am:

freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2011 at 7:42am: Quote: All in all, I still shake my head at the amount of Recreational Fisherman Fishing in restricted areas ...even in full sight of us Diving. Do you let them know it is a no take zone? Seems unlikely given the heavy enforcement and considerable resources. Although big deal and good on them if they get away with it.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 4:59pm:

pjb05 wrote on Jan 5th, 2011 at 9:26am: freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2011 at 7:42am: Quote: All in all, I still shake my head at the amount of Recreational Fisherman Fishing in restricted areas ...even in full sight of us Diving. Do you let them know it is a no take zone? Seems unlikely given the heavy enforcement and considerable resources. Although big deal and good on them if they get away with it.

Yes and that refers to NSW marine parks - I don't consider them fisheries management initiatives. In any case as you can see I doubted that these instances actually happened.

What interested me was your encouragement of illegal fishing, not the incident that sparked the discussion.

So you think it is OK for fishermen to break the rules that limit the take of fish so long as you don't regard it as a fisheries management rule?

Does this distinction only apply to NSW?

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 8:23pm:

What interested me was your encouragement of illegal fishing, not the incident that sparked the discussion. So you think it is OK for fishermen to break the rules that limit the take of fish so long as you don't regard it as a fisheries management rule? Does this distinction only apply to NSW?

We have covered this before, months ago. I thought we were talking about whether Jagsignature's post lacked perspective.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 8:23pm:

What interested me was your encouragement of illegal fishing, not the incident that sparked the discussion. So you think it is OK for fishermen to break the rules that limit the take of fish so long as you don't regard it as a fisheries management rule? Does this distinction only apply to NSW?

I live in NSW. Also no take zones don't limit the take of fish they limit where you can take them.

We were. Now we are talking about your promotion of illegal fishing again and the excuses you give for it.

If you have any sensible questions about Jas's 'perspective' I am happy to go back to that, if you don't feel comfortable discussing your promotion of illegal fishing.


Quote:

Also no take zones don't limit the take of fish they limit where you can take them.

And this does not limit the take of fish? Isn't that like saying that size limits don't limit the take, only what sizes you can keep?

[]We were. Now we are talking about your promotion of illegal fishing again and the excuses you give for it.

'Promotion' is a strong word for one slightly flippant remark. It says a lot about your bias that you sieze on that and let Jagsignatures hyperbole go unchallenged.  

If you have any sensible questions about Jas's 'perspective' I am happy to go back to that, if you don't feel comfortable discussing your promotion of illegal fishing.

One remark taken out of context in a obscure hardly forum hardly constitutes 'promoting'.

PS how are the questions not sensible when they relate directly to points you have made. You just projecting your own faults back onto me - pathetic!  


Quote:

Also no take zones don't limit the take of fish they limit where you can take them.

And this does not limit the take of fish? Isn't that like saying that size limits don't limit the take, only what sizes you can keep?

There is a fundamental difference. For instance the fishing pressure can merely be displaced elsewhere outside the no take zone. Also in the case of a lot of these marine parks it is doubtful that any more restrictions on fishing were needed in the first place.

Quote:

'Promotion' is a strong word for one slightly flippant remark.... One remark taken out of context in a obscure hardly forum hardly constitutes 'promoting'.

You also went on to explain that the laws 'don't count' because you don't see it as anything to do with fisheries management. You also tried to claim that they don't limit catches even though they limit catches.


Quote:

Also in the case of a lot of these marine parks it is doubtful that any more restrictions on fishing were needed in the first place.

But not in the case of any other fisheries management tool?

]
Quote:

'Promotion' is a strong word for one slightly flippant remark.... One remark taken out of context in a obscure hardly forum hardly constitutes 'promoting'.

You also went on to explain that the laws 'don't count' because you don't see it as anything to do with fisheries management. You also tried to claim that they don't limit catches even though they limit catches.

I didn't say they dont count. I was just counter pointing Jags 'crime of the century. depiction of fishing in green zones. They only limit catches inside the marine park. They will increase fishing pressure outside the park due to displaced effort, with possible adverse ecological effects. To declare marine parks willy nilly with no thought to the consequences is environmental meddling.


Quote:

Also in the case of a lot of these marine parks it is doubtful that any more restrictions on fishing were needed in the first place.

But not in the case of any other fisheries management tool?

What does the word 'any' mean to you. At most some of the traditional tools could have been tweaked slightly.

Its ok, I'm not offended as I know I'm uneducated and unqualified.
(Having grown up from Mt Druitt to Minto)

Any comment/view made from me is purely based from a non-scientific perspective that lacks large amounts of paper-work based upon minimalistic research efforts due to budget.

With that said. Are you implying that my comments are purely said in such a way that I am merely dropping lines without a care of thought via the net without concern for consequence and the impact they may have upon other individuals, especially from the Fishing Industry? :-?

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 1:05pm:

Its ok, I'm not offended as I know I'm uneducated and unqualified. (Having grown up from Mt Druitt to Minto) Any comment/view made from me is purely based from a non-scientific perspective that lacks large amounts of paper-work based upon minimalistic research efforts due to budget. With that said. Are you implying that my comments are purely said in such a way that I am merely dropping lines without a care of thought via the net without concern for consequence and the impact they may have upon other individuals, especially from the Fishing Industry? :-?

To sum up I would say you have an anti-fishing bias and are prone to magical thinking about the benifits of marine parks.

Quote:

I didn't say they dont count. I was just counter pointing Jags 'crime of the century. depiction of fishing in green zones.

You mean the dead fish on the beach?