Shrinking fish at risk of being wiped out

Date
    February 1, 2013


AS FISH get smaller under man's environmental impact they will become more prone to predators and a crucial food source will become more endangered than thought obvious, warn scientists.     :(

Previous research has found some key fish species dwindle in size as larger specimens are trawled out and climate change affects the food chain.   

But until now the broader impact of this shrinking has not been explored.

A team from Australia and Finland used computer simulation to predict what might happen should five species of fish decline in average length over a 50-year period.


The shrinkage was quite small, up to 4 per cent. Yet mortality from predators rose as much as 50 per cent, they found.

The repercussions for catches are significant.

Total biomass for four of the species declined as much as 35 per cent, and catches by the same margin, the researchers say in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters.

''Even small decreases in the body size of fish species can have large effects on their natural mortality,'' the team wrote.

The team looked at five southeast Australian trawl fisheries species - jackass morwong, tiger flathead, silver warehou, blue grenadier and pink ling.

Species biomass decreased for all but the grenadier, which also shrank in size but whose numbers actually rose up to 10 per cent as the fish moved to more coastal areas where it was less vulnerable to predators, according to the simulation.

Man is changing marine ecosystems worldwide - directly through fishing and indirectly through global warming, the researchers wrote. ''Fisheries management practices that ignore contemporary life-history changes are likely to overestimate long-term yields and can lead to overfishing,'' they warned.     :(

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/animals/shrinking-fish-at-risk-of-being-wiped-out-20130131-2dnh7.html#ixzz2JapJlQzy

How are all those evil Secular humanist economic models and social engineering working out... :P

Minimum sizes have a lot to blame for this. Basically we are eating the prize specimens and keeping the runts for breeders. I have seen fishermen attempt to play down the risks associated with this. They appear to have incorporated fisheries management legislation that is less than a generation old into some kind of fishing moral code and will cling to it like a safety blanket, while rejecting all alternative fisheries management tools (eg marine parks) that do not have the same problems and can even help to reverse the trend.

well all those whales and sharks we are saving will need to be fed... and I am all for never allowing huge animals like that starve..

I cant afford fish anyway..so wont worry me..

Starvation is the way most top predators die Cods.

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 8:46am:

Minimum sizes have a lot to blame for this. Basically we are eating the prize specimens and keeping the runts for breeders. I have seen fishermen attempt to play down the risks associated with this. They appear to have incorporated fisheries management legislation that is less than a generation old into some kind of fishing moral code and will cling to it like a safety blanket, while rejecting all alternative fisheries management tools (eg marine parks) that do not have the same problems and can even help to reverse the trend.

Are you suggesting no minimum size limits?

Not sure what your getting at....

I advocate slot sizes over just a minimum size. An example for me is fresh water Murray cod; I’d like to see a slot size of 60-80cm (example) anything smaller or bigger goes back.

Protects the big breeders, gives smaller fish a chance to spawn.

We should reduce our reliance on minimum sizes. For some species we should be able to do away with them completely. For example, as we get more no-take zones, more sedentary species will be overprotected compared to the species that move around more. We should be able to reduce or eliminate minimum sizes on these.

One problem with both minimum and maximum sizes is hooking mortality - just because you return it does not mean it survives or breeds successfully. It will however learn not to bite next time.

There is an urban myth that minimum sizes increase total catch in terms of weight because the little fish grow bigger and get caught again. In fact the opposite is true. We would catch more fish, in terms of both number and weight, if we relied less on minimum sizes. One reason is that fish learn. The other reasons are related to ecosystem biology - the little fish end up getting eaten etc rather than growing bigger and being caught again. Growth rate relative to amount consumed also drops. That is one reason why farmers for example sell most of their cattle at one year old, or even younger.

It is the big fish that are the successful breeders. Giving the smaller ones a chance may appeal to a sense of fairness, but it is pretty useless for stock management.

Basically, minimum sizes are about the worst possible fisheries management tool available. People have gotten used to them, taught them to their kids etc and invested emotionally in them.

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 10:29am:

We should reduce our reliance on minimum sizes. For some species we should be able to do away with them completely. For example, as we get more no-take zones, more sedentary species will be overprotected compared to the species that move around more. We should be able to reduce or eliminate minimum sizes on these. One problem with both minimum and maximum sizes is hooking mortality - just because you return it does not mean it survives or breeds successfully. It will however learn not to bite next time. There is an urban myth that minimum sizes increase total catch in terms of weight because the little fish grow bigger and get caught again. In fact the opposite is true. We would catch more fish, in terms of both number and weight, if we relied less on minimum sizes. One reason is that fish learn. The other reasons are related to ecosystem biology - the little fish end up getting eaten etc rather than growing bigger and being caught again. Growth rate relative to amount consumed also drops. That is one reason why farmers for example sell most of their cattle at one year old, or even younger. It is the big fish that are the successful breeders. Giving the smaller ones a chance may appeal to a sense of fairness, but it is pretty useless for stock management. Basically, minimum sizes are about the worst possible fisheries management tool available. People have gotten used to them, taught them to their kids etc and invested emotionally in them.

Reduce the minimum size in no take zones?

If you think a fish once caught won’t bite next time, you have some serious research to do and stunning lack of practical knowledge.

Again your “urban myth” is reliant on fish learning not to bite the hook. I’d like to see a study that supports this. I’ve seen fish unhook then smash the bait straight away. I’ve caught fish with hooks and lures in their mouth.

I’d wager fish instinct greatly out weighs any “learning” as you put it.

You’ve put up nothing I can see that backs up what you are saying.

“the little fish end up getting eaten etc rather than growing bigger and being caught again”

So there should be no big fish…..??

Do you really want to see people with bag limits of 20cm bream/whiting/flathead/snapper?

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 8:46am:

Minimum sizes have a lot to blame for this. Basically we are eating the prize specimens and keeping the runts for breeders. .

Like that fine specimen in your nic pic FD?  :)

Quote:

Reduce the minimum size in no take zones?

Everywhere.


Quote:

If you think a fish once caught won’t bite next time, you have some serious research to do and stunning lack of practical knowledge.

It is well known. I have seen it myself. I have seen critics of marine parks use it as an argument against marine parks. Obviously some are quicker learners than others, but catching a fish with a hook in it does not mean fish can't or don't learn.


Quote:

Again your “urban myth” is reliant on fish learning not to bite the hook.

No it isn't. Even without learning you still have major problems with selective pressures on growth rates.


Quote:

So there should be no big fish…..??

I didn't say that either. I did draw actual conclusions if you would bother to read them. Here it is again for you: We would catch more fish, in terms of both number and weight, if we relied less on minimum sizes.


Quote:

Do you really want to see people with bag limits of 20cm bream/whiting/flathead/snapper?

It beats catching nothing.

fish are smarter than i thought they were

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 1:41pm:

Quote: Reduce the minimum size in no take zones? Everywhere. Makes no sense what so ever [quote]If you think a fish once caught won’t bite next time, you have some serious research to do and stunning lack of practical knowledge.

It is well known. I have seen it myself. I have seen critics of marine parks use it as an argument against marine parks. Obviously some are quicker learners than others, but catching a fish with a hook in it does not mean fish can't or don't learn.

Sorry. You need to do better than that. I've seen the same big Cod caught 2-3 times, fish will hit a lure and hook up, spit it out and smash it again. i have never seen any information that fish learn not to bite hooks - der food, der eat food, der looks like food, der eat fake lure food.


Quote:

Again your “urban myth” is reliant on fish learning not to bite the hook.

No it isn't. Even without learning you still have major problems with selective pressures on growth rates.

Examples please?


Quote:

So there should be no big fish…..??

I didn't say that either. I did draw actual conclusions if you would bother to read them. Here it is again for you: We would catch more fish, in terms of both number and weight, if we relied less on minimum sizes.

Why? I'm sorry i need facts here, studies that point this out.


Quote:

Do you really want to see people with bag limits of 20cm bream/whiting/flathead/snapper?

It beats catching nothing.[/quote]

;D - don't give up so easily

Please put up one study to back your assertion that minimum size limits on fish is a bad thing.

:-?

Sure, there is one in the marine park article:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-parks-fisheries-management-tool.html#links

Also, the opening post is about this problem, though admittedly it is a bit vague.

Do you doubt the negative impact of minimum sizes on fish growth rates?

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 7:05pm:

Sure, there is one in the marine park article: http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-parks-fisheries-management-tool.html#links Also, the opening post is about this problem, though admittedly it is a bit vague. Do you doubt the negative impact of minimum sizes on fish growth rates?

Absolutely.

I don't doubt the negative impacts of trawlers, long liners and netting easturies around the world.

Is that a yes? Do you doubt the negative impact of minimum sizes on fish growth rates?

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 11:04am:

Is that a yes? Do you doubt the negative impact of minimum sizes on fish growth rates?

I read the article, it makes good points and alot of assumptions.

I'm talking mainly about the recreational fisherman.

Nothing does more harm than commercial fishing.

And who is going to waste time and effort on a bucket of tiddlers?

Yes I noticed you trying to change the subject, but I would still appreciate a straight answer. After all, you did demand I provide evidence.

Do you doubt the negative impact of minimum sizes on fish growth rates?


Quote:

And who is going to waste time and effort on a bucket of tiddlers?

Every fisherman who has ever targetted whiting. No-one will be forcing you to target smaller fish.

Also, what assumptions does the article make?

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 11:36am:

Yes I noticed you trying to change the subject, but I would still appreciate a straight answer. After all, you did demand I provide evidence. Do you doubt the negative impact of minimum sizes on fish growth rates? Quote: And who is going to waste time and effort on a bucket of tiddlers? Every fisherman who has ever targetted whiting. No-one will be forcing you to target smaller fish. Also, what assumptions does the article make?

I'd like to see more evidence than the article contains, yes.

Is that because you doubt the impact? It always seems strange to me when people ask me to prove the bleeding obvious on this issue. It's not just you. I have gotten it from many people.

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 11:48am:

Is that because you doubt the impact? It always seems strange to me when people ask me to prove the bleeding obvious on this issue. It's not just you. I have gotten it from many people.

If it is so bleeding obvious then the proof should be easy to obtain, yes?

This is the 1st time ever i have heard that minimum size limits effects the growth rate of fish and i will bring it up for discussion on the fishing forum i visit.

Just out of interest, how would you go about obtaining the proof?

Which forum do you visit?

freediver wrote on Feb 4^th, 2013 at 7:30pm:

Just out of interest, how would you go about obtaining the proof? Which forum do you visit?

WTF?

I don’t have any proof man.

I’m not the one saying minimum size limits are a bad thing, you are.

I’m not the one saying small fish learn not to bit the hook, you are (and in my experience this is complete unfounded bollocks)

The article itself points at the removal of larger fish as the issue, not minimum size limits.

“Previous research has found some key fish species dwindle in size as larger specimens are trawled out”

I’m willing to read through the poof you have to back up your claims.

Fishnet….

Quote:

I don’t have any proof man.

I didn't ask you for proof. I asked you for a method. You suggested it would be easy. Please elaborate. Or do you always find yourself incapable of figuring out the easy things?


Quote:

I’m not the one saying small fish learn not to bit the hook, you are (and in my experience this is complete unfounded bollocks)

What experience would that be? Catching a fish?


Quote:

The article itself points at the removal of larger fish as the issue, not minimum size limits.

Duh. Overfishing is one problem. Selective removal of the prime stock is another. Stating that one is a problem does not contradict the other. Failing to distinguish demonstrates nothing.

freediver wrote on Feb 5^th, 2013 at 7:39pm:

Quote: I don’t have any proof man. I didn't ask you for proof. I asked you for a method. You suggested it would be easy. Please elaborate. Or do you always find yourself incapable of figuring out the easy things? [quote]I’m not the one saying small fish learn not to bit the hook, you are (and in my experience this is complete unfounded bollocks)

What experience would that be? Catching a fish?


Quote:

The article itself points at the removal of larger fish as the issue, not minimum size limits.

Duh. Overfishing is one problem. Selective removal of the prime stock is another. Stating that one is a problem does not contradict the other. Failing to distinguish demonstrates nothing.[/quote]

Just say you have no proof dude. ::)

:-X

Are you asking me to prove the theory of natural selection?

freediver wrote on Feb 7^th, 2013 at 9:50pm:

Are you asking me to prove the theory of natural selection?

Why don't you start with the claim that little fish learn not to bit the hook?

:o

google "learned hook avoidance"

freediver wrote on Feb 9^th, 2013 at 9:31am:

google "learned hook avoidance"

OK...

I'll google fish smashing a lure or bait, hooking up, spitting the lure and returning to smash said lure or bait again.

I'll google fish caught with lures and hooks in thier gobs.

::)

In fact i've seen it so many times i won't bother.

:P

I think your problem is one of logic, not evidence. What you say does not mean that fish don't learn.

freediver wrote on Feb 9^th, 2013 at 10:06am:

I think your problem is one of logic, not evidence. What you say does not mean that fish don't learn.

Do you even know what the term means?

Little fish learn not to bite the hook.....

Waiting......

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=learned+hook+avoidance

Have you figured out what the evidence means yet FriYAY?

Perhaps an analogy might help you understand. If I dig up a few examples of children mispelling words, does that mean that children cannot learn to spell?

JC Denton wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 2:49pm:

fish are smarter than i thought they were

Yep  .. smarter than you Roberta. ;) :D

Aye  'tis sad but becoming truer everyday.

My old Mum bless her heart,  ... used to say...
there are more fish in the sea, than we've ever taken out of her.....


( and no she wasn't talking about men ::) :) .. altho maybe that was subtext :)

It is disturbing to realise that this long held belief, no longer holds true.

When stocks  become so low, due to over-fishing, as to be unable to replenish... we lose the species... we lose the protein, and we lose another vital part of earth ecology.

We  LOSE.

I've caught fish... on a line... both in salt and fresh water... 

and eaten it. 
But not lately. 
Stuck with ' fisho's ' now.

Never caught a Cod in the Murray tho.
Caught a lovely golden perch,  and lots of Carp....  :(

Caught a monster whiting near the Sundale Bridge   :) and got spiked by a Bream at the same time and place,  more or less.

ATE THEM ALL.

They always taste better when you catch them yourself.

yummo

Oh but I've never managed to cook and enjoy a carp.  There are ways apparently, but I don't know'm.

Still, isn't it scary to hear about the imported fish to Australia.??

Some awful stuff ( not exactly surprising) about the fish sold to us.

I try only to by fresh locally caught  ie Aus or NZ fish.... 
I also try not to purchase overfished species.... but it isn't easy ...

as for fishing personally, now... it is outside my reach... and I also find the destruction of all marine species by our cast off line, netting,  and PLASTICS generally... horrifying.


Because it is a process we cannot stop... so... 

what is there to do???


Problemo Numero Uno...

TOO MANY PEOPLE>!!!!!! :(

freediver wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 9:36pm:

Have you figured out what the evidence means yet FriYAY? Perhaps an analogy might help you understand. If I dig up a few examples of children mispelling words, does that mean that children cannot learn to spell?

As your persona on here suggests you like fishing?

Is it hard to ingore that fact that fish will hook up on a bait/lure - spit the hook then smash the bait/lure again?

And fish with  hooks and lures handing out their gob, still smashing baits and lures?

I think i'll stick with the basics of fish and their instinctive need to feed. The instinct to think a lure is an injured fish.

You run a lure/bait past a fish and it's hungry it'll hit the lure/bait, not sit their and go hmmmm i did this before - you're not tricking me again.

:)

Quote:

Is it hard to ingore that fact that fish will hook up on a bait/lure - spit the hook then smash the bait/lure again?

I am not ignoring it. I am attempting to get you to interpret this rationally. You asked for the scientific evidence I gave it to you. It is you who appears to be ignoring this and replacing it with a completely irrational interpretation of what you have seen. You appear incapable of distinguishing between what you actually see and what you interpret from that. It's as if you think your irrational interpretation is somehow justified by the observation.

Hence the question: If I dig up a few examples of children mispelling words, does that mean that children cannot learn to spell? <- This was an attempt to help you understand the flaw in your interpretation of what you see.


Quote:

You run a lure/bait past a fish and it's hungry it'll hit the lure/bait, not sit their and go hmmmm i did this before - you're not tricking me again.

Are you some kind of fish whisperer?

heehee 
dats funneee.. ;D

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2013 at 7:46pm:

Quote: Is it hard to ingore that fact that fish will hook up on a bait/lure - spit the hook then smash the bait/lure again? I am not ignoring it. I am attempting to get you to interpret this rationally. You asked for the scientific evidence I gave it to you. It is you who appears to be ignoring this and replacing it with a completely irrational interpretation of what you have seen. You appear incapable of distinguishing between what you actually see and what you interpret from that. It's as if you think your irrational interpretation is somehow justified by the observation. Hence the question: If I dig up a few examples of children mispelling words, does that mean that children cannot learn to spell? <- This was an attempt to help you understand the flaw in your interpretation of what you see. [quote]You run a lure/bait past a fish and it's hungry it'll hit the lure/bait, not sit their and go hmmmm i did this before - you're not tricking me again.

Are you some kind of fish whisperer?[/quote]

OK fish learn not to bite hooks, that's why returning fish and minimum size limits don't work and make the fish available to catch smaller.

;D ;D ;D

Bollocks.

Like I said FriYAY, it is only one of may reasons why minimum sizes are a bad idea, and are almost universally acknowledged as a bad idea by anyone who bothers to think before they speak. But it is still a god reason.

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 8:26am:

How are all those evil Secular humanist economic models and social engineering working out... :P

How's the fake Christianity working out!??!

Do you believe in the heavenly govt yet or are you simply trying to fool people into believing you believe in a heavenly govt???

Emma wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 11:28pm:

JC Denton wrote on Feb 1st, 2013 at 2:49pm: fish are smarter than i thought they were Yep  .. smarter than you Roberta. ;) :D

Isn't 'Roberta' what you called Andrei??  :-? :-?

Emma wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 11:45pm:

Aye  'tis sad but becoming truer everyday. My old Mum bless her heart,  ... used to say... there are more fish in the sea, than we've ever taken out of her..... ( and no she wasn't talking about men ::) :) .. altho maybe that was subtext :) It is disturbing to realise that this long held belief, no longer holds true. When stocks  become so low, due to over-fishing, as to be unable to replenish... we lose the species... we lose the protein, and we lose another vital part of earth ecology. We  LOSE.

Nothing grows exponentially!

-->>Greed thinks it does, but greed breeds tunnel vision.

freediver wrote on Feb 17^th, 2013 at 9:18pm:

They always taste better when you catch them yourself.

Caught a dhuie on a handline once: even though my mates were putting it in their dhuies mouth mine tasted the best!
  8-) 8-)

Emma wrote on Feb 17^th, 2013 at 10:18pm:

yummo Oh but I've never managed to cook and enjoy a carp.  There are ways apparently, but I don't know'm. Still, isn't it scary to hear about the imported fish to Australia.?? Some awful stuff ( not exactly surprising) about the fish sold to us. I try only to by fresh locally caught  ie Aus or NZ fish....  I also try not to purchase overfished species.... but it isn't easy ... as for fishing personally, now... it is outside my reach... and I also find the destruction of all marine species by our cast off line, netting,  and PLASTICS generally... horrifying. Because it is a process we cannot stop... so...  what is there to do??? Problemo Numero Uno... TOO MANY PEOPLE>!!!!!! :(

Forget imported fish: the siginificance of the problem really was indicated by fish farming!

freediver wrote on Feb 19^th, 2013 at 12:29pm:

Like I said FriYAY, it is only one of may reasons why minimum sizes are a bad idea, and are almost universally acknowledged as a bad idea by anyone who bothers to think before they speak. But it is still a god reason.

Here we go again - proof?? ::)

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 8:46am:

Minimum sizes have a lot to blame for this. Basically we are eating the prize specimens and keeping the runts for breeders. I have seen fishermen attempt to play down the risks associated with this. They appear to have incorporated fisheries management legislation that is less than a generation old into some kind of fishing moral code and will cling to it like a safety blanket, while rejecting all alternative fisheries management tools (eg marine parks) that do not have the same problems and can even help to reverse the trend.

I must admit I'd never thought minimum sizes could cause problems.

Never thought about it though I must admit as I'm not that much into fishing or the beach etc..

So, this applies to crayfish in a big way I suppose?

I mean, it's the most glaring example I can think of whereby in the early 90s size crays could be caught by dropping a pot off the rocks and nowadays you've seen bigger prawns.

Over fishing, especially by commercial interests.

Trawling for prawns in estuaries - the nurseries for many fish species.

Trawling in general.

All IMHO have so much more impact on fish stocks than minimum size limits.

FriYAY wrote on Feb 19^th, 2013 at 3:02pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 19th, 2013 at 12:29pm: Like I said FriYAY, it is only one of may reasons why minimum sizes are a bad idea, and are almost universally acknowledged as a bad idea by anyone who bothers to think before they speak. But it is still a god reason. Here we go again - proof?? ::)

What would you like proof of this time? That fish are not somehow magically excluded from the theory of natural selection? Every time I give you the evidence you respond with something stupid like 'But I once caught a fish with a hook in it's mouth, and I have more faith in that...' as if that actually means something. Or are you going to pick another marginally relevant point while you dance around the elephant in the room?


BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 19^th, 2013 at 3:09pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 1st, 2013 at 8:46am: Minimum sizes have a lot to blame for this. Basically we are eating the prize specimens and keeping the runts for breeders. I have seen fishermen attempt to play down the risks associated with this. They appear to have incorporated fisheries management legislation that is less than a generation old into some kind of fishing moral code and will cling to it like a safety blanket, while rejecting all alternative fisheries management tools (eg marine parks) that do not have the same problems and can even help to reverse the trend. I must admit I'd never thought minimum sizes could cause problems. Never thought about it though I must admit as I'm not that much into fishing or the beach etc.. So, this applies to crayfish in a big way I suppose? I mean, it's the most glaring example I can think of whereby in the early 90s size crays could be caught by dropping a pot off the rocks and nowadays you've seen bigger prawns.

Sure it applies to crays also - perhaps more so given the enourmous pressure on those stocks and the heavy reliance on management. However it is hard to distinguish the effect from other non-heredity influences on growth rate and size.


Quote:

All IMHO have so much more impact on fish stocks than minimum size limits.

Does this mean minimum sizes are not a bad idea? Or are you just blame shifting and having a whinge?

and I'll add 
VERY imp.. 
destruction of mangroves.

No Deathray.... I used to call Andrei.. Hick  or.. Hicksville ...or it...  because it loves the USA  and pisses on Aus.

Haven't  'interacted'  lately.  :)


No doubt fishing practices need a major rethink... but the population pressure??? 
need for protein?  v.  sustainable fishing?...

too many people.. :( :-X

freediver wrote on Feb 19^th, 2013 at 7:00pm:

FriYAY wrote on Feb 19th, 2013 at 3:02pm: freediver wrote on Feb 19th, 2013 at 12:29pm: Like I said FriYAY, it is only one of may reasons why minimum sizes are a bad idea, and are almost universally acknowledged as a bad idea by anyone who bothers to think before they speak. But it is still a god reason. Here we go again - proof?? ::) What would you like proof of this time? That fish are not somehow magically excluded from the theory of natural selection? Every time I give you the evidence you respond with something stupid like 'But I once caught a fish with a hook in it's mouth, and I have more faith in that...' as if that actually means something. Or are you going to pick another marginally relevant point while you dance around the elephant in the room? BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 19th, 2013 at 3:09pm: freediver wrote on Feb 1st, 2013 at 8:46am: Minimum sizes have a lot to blame for this. Basically we are eating the prize specimens and keeping the runts for breeders. I have seen fishermen attempt to play down the risks associated with this. They appear to have incorporated fisheries management legislation that is less than a generation old into some kind of fishing moral code and will cling to it like a safety blanket, while rejecting all alternative fisheries management tools (eg marine parks) that do not have the same problems and can even help to reverse the trend. I must admit I'd never thought minimum sizes could cause problems. Never thought about it though I must admit as I'm not that much into fishing or the beach etc.. So, this applies to crayfish in a big way I suppose? I mean, it's the most glaring example I can think of whereby in the early 90s size crays could be caught by dropping a pot off the rocks and nowadays you've seen bigger prawns. Sure it applies to crays also - perhaps more so given the enourmous pressure on those stocks and the heavy reliance on management. However it is hard to distinguish the effect from other non-heredity influences on growth rate and size. Quote: All IMHO have so much more impact on fish stocks than minimum size limits. Does this mean minimum sizes are not a bad idea? Or are you just blame shifting and having a whinge?

Just put up the proof that minimum size limits is a bad thing. Show us who agress with this. Show us the peer reviewed studies.

Blame shifting!!! Ohh FFS.

Are you saying over fishing by commercial interests and trawling eastuaries is a good thing?

;D ;D

Quote:

Are you saying over fishing by commercial interests and trawling eastuaries is a good thing?

No, I was just trying to figure out your attempt to change the subject.


Quote:

Just put up the proof that minimum size limits is a bad thing. Show us who agress with this. Show us the peer reviewed studies.

I already have. Plus, I think this falls into the category of the bleeding obvious. Hence my question of what exactly you want proof of. Do you have any reason to think that fish are magically immune from natural selection? Or do you want proof that slower growing fish is a bad thing?

This is like arguing with SOB  ::)

I can give you the link again if you want, but I suspect you are after something different.

If you google "big old fat fecund female" you will find plenty of relevant references.

freediver wrote on Feb 21^st, 2013 at 12:26pm:

I can give you the link again if you want, but I suspect you are after something different. If you google "big old fat fecund female" you will find plenty of relevant references.

No just a link to the peer reviewed studies that say minimum size limits are no good for fisheries.

It's pretty simple.

I'd suggest if i looked up "big old fat fecund female" all i would get is pictures of you.

freediver wrote on Feb 11^th, 2013 at 7:05pm:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=learned+hook+avoidance

;D ;D

The only hit was this forum

;D ;D

Minimum sizes have a lot to blame for this - PROOF

Basically, minimum sizes are about the worst possible fisheries management tool available – PROOF

It will however learn not to bite next time – PROOF


We would catch more fish, in terms of both number and weight, if we relied less on minimum sizes. One reason is that fish learn – PROOF and PROOF

Quote:

No just a link to the peer reviewed studies that say minimum size limits are no good for fisheries.

I already gave you some examples - the first time you demanded evidence.


Quote:

The only hit was this forum

There are 15 million results. The top ones are peer reviewed articles. Try using the link, rather then googling it. You are turning into SOB.

FriYAY, did you know that there is a big annual scientific conference about this, where marine biologists get together and say things like "OMG, did you realise that the theory of natural selection also applies to fish!" and "Damn, it turns out we cannot change these fundamental natural laws just because a few dopey fishermen have turned fisheries department propaganda about minimum size limits into some kind of religion." You should subscribe to their journal.

gotta catch em yourself

mmmmm

---

Nice fish – Queeny?

Nice yak.

Nice  8-)

FriYAY wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2013 at 1:42pm:

Nice fish – Queeny? Nice yak. Nice  8-)

yellow fin tuna  fri

aquascoot wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2013 at 1:55pm:

FriYAY wrote on Feb 22nd, 2013 at 1:42pm: Nice fish – Queeny? Nice yak. Nice  8-) yellow fin tuna  fri

Oh

Thought it looked fat for a skinny.. ::)

what about the guy who just broke the Qld record ..deep spear-fishing (amazingly w/o support tackle),  of a 54.+? kg Giant Trevally this last week.

He had to  fight the fish  up with just his strength and will,  took ages...hmm sorry got no more detail,  but it was an excellent wee article in our local free Newspaper. A Quest paper if you're interested. 

50+ kg GT!!!

Holy crap  8-)

yep  .. new qld record..

the pic in the paper  :o  it was nearly half as long, as the boat, looked like,.. and fat. 

Took 6 guys to get it into a bayside butcher shop to cut it up. True.  !! 

An epic story few will ever know about..

Emma wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 7:34pm:

yep  .. new qld record.. the pic in the paper  :o  it was nearly half as long, as the boat, looked like,.. and fat.  Took 6 guys to get it into a bayside butcher shop to cut it up. True.  !!  An epic story few will ever know about..

i FEEL CHUFFED TO READ ABOUT IT HERE THEN:  :D  8-) 8-)

well you could go to the net...  Quest Newspapers are the largest producer of local free news in SEQ,.. more or less..  :-?

Bound to be findable -- if thats your thing.... 

great tale of one that didn't get away..   :)

http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/logan/record-gt-puts-up-a-great-fight/story-fn8m0u8i-1226582429755

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2013/02/21/1226582/430059-fish.jpg

there you go ...

link didn't work FD

I wonder... would it actually be safe to eat? 

I know that the larger fish caught in these seas are likely to contain ciguaterra.??

Umm probably spelt wrong...

But aren't large tropical fish  suspect as food...  from ciguaterra poisoning.??
rather nasty??

OH G Trevalley aren't tropical fish as such... but is it  size??  or locale and size... which makes eating these fish dangerous??

just wondering??

I'd eat it. It's a bit far south for ciguatera. Might be a bit tough though.

wonder why it wasn't released...??

to get a record,, do you HAVE to kill the FISH..?

wouldn't it have been ideal for breeding...  ?? 
Bet it was smart  too..!!

Catch and release isn't very popular among spearos.

OK but
must the fish be killed to claim a record?

It would be impractical to attempt to claim a spearfishing record without killing the fish. I imagine line fishing would have similar limitations, though I think they are looking into ways around this.

ok  - I guess that's pretty obvious in hindsight.. 

Do you have any thoughts on the discussion about the impacts of minimum size limits on fish stocks?

Do you have any thoughts on the discussion about the impacts of minimum size limits on fish stocks?

As of now?/  ?   i admit to not reading much of the discussion in previous posts...  about this issue.


seems there are points I should read up on/

I'll get back to you.