Snapper is such a great fish all-round.
Makes for great eating (all-round). Looks good in underwater photos. Has a pleasant nature of approaching divers although can keep its distance.

I'm amazed that such a species is becoming a 'scarce' species.
I always thought that if Snapper would be restricted, then something really has to be done!

I really don't think Fishing should become a 'Recreation' anymore. Fish should not die for 'the fun of it'. I believe SpearFishing is a responsible method, though not for silly things like 'Sport' and trophies that come with it I also don't think the 'quotas' for Recreational Fishing are justified, they just allow 'under-the-table' selling to restaurants - which is quite more common than you think.

I endorse Commercial Fishing but I believe that they need to harness their so-called technology to minimalising wasteful by-catch.
We also need to implement 'Catch to Order', to prevent large amounts of canned/packaged Fish going to waste upon SuperMarket shelves passed the Use By Date. I think only 30% of caught Commercial Fish get consumed. Another 30% go to waste upon shelves and the other 30% of the Catch is by-catch ...the last 10% is variable.

I would also like to see International Waters placed into the hands of 'Land-Locked' nations - thus preventing the ruination of those waters to some degree by restriction. It also gives Land-Locked nations a slice of the cake. I'm sure not all will act responsible, but it stops the "free-for-all" that many fleets exploit.


I can't believe Snapper is threatened. For an Ocean loving people like us Australians - this is just shear embarressing!

Quote:


The GBR is about the northern limit of their range.

Quote:


I never claimed it was, but this is a pretty extreme length to go to.

Quote:


How far over the top would it have to go before you supported an alternative like marine parks?

Quote:


A no take zone would be far more palatable, especially if it is reasonably sized.

Quote:


Apparently, you areed with me. So why are we still arguing about it?

Quote:


It is a question PJ.

How far over the top would it have to go before you supported an alternative like marine parks?

Quote:


You will have to give me a specific example. That doesn't sound like a question with a general answer.

Quote:


You posted this:

Quote:


Quote:


No. I am asking a simple question. One you seem strangely incapable of answering.

How far over the top would it have to go before you supported an alternative like marine parks?

Quote:


Is that what you actually think?

Quote:


What example?

[] Quote:


You posted this:

Quote:


Quote:


No. I am asking a simple question. One you seem strangely incapable of answering.

How far over the top would it have to go before you supported an alternative like marine parks?

It's not a simple question it is a false paradigm you dreamed up. It is disconnected from reality. If I think the closed seasons are over the top then why would I countenence more restrictions?

Quote:


Is that what you actually think?

No I just go to the trouble of posting opinions I don't believe (duh). PS the closed seasons in Qld have been controversial.

Quote:


What example?

Snapper in SE Qld (plus the reef fish closure on the GBR I mentioned).

Quote:


No PJ. It is a very simple question. Have you never come across the concept of a hypothetical before?

How far over the top would it have to go before you supported an alternative like marine parks?

Quote:


Do you?

Quote:


Alternative restrictions - ones that are inherently more stable and less prone to the need for over the top interventions.

Quote:


You keep introducing your opinions with "If I think", obviously this calls into question whether you do actually think.

Quote:


How is this a relevant example? What percentage of the south east snapper grounds are protected in no take zones? It would be less than 0.1%.

Quote:


No, all you do is suggest what might happen if you had a thought.

Quote:


You don't even claim to think anything. From your posts it seems thinking is a hypothetical situation for you, yet you have the most trouble with hypothetical questions.

How far over the top would it have to go before you supported an alternative like marine parks?

Quote:


I used a very wide margin of error.

Quote:


About 20% in a netowrk of small NTZs.

Quote:


For starters, you can still catch snapper. If you can find your way out of a paper bag, you can find your way out of a no take zone.

Quote:
 

Again, you would have to give an actual example. The GBR is the northern limit of the snapper fishery.

Quote:


Are you suggesting it might be more than 0.1% Think about it before you answer. Or are you going to demand I prove something you don;t even disagree with?

Quote:


By 'not all that overfished', do you mean snapper? If so, are you suggesting it could get a lot worse?

How far over the top would it have to go before you supported an alternative like marine parks?

Quote:


We don't. NTZs are not a guarantee, and you yourself argued against my suggestions that other limits should be relaxed as they are brought in. However, there will be much less need for them, because NTZs make fish populations inherently more stable.

Quote:


Which closed season are you referring to?

Quote:


No PJ. It is a pretty simple matter of putting things into perspective. That is why all I suggested is that you think about it before responding.

Quote:


Other than incessant whinging from a minority of fishermen, what is this considerable cost?

Quote:


The GBR is a big place. I am not going to bother trying to figure out what you are on about.

Looks like you are wrong again Freediver
news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/wa-report-raises-doubts-over-marine-parks
-20110602-1fhy5.html
Quote:

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 10:33pm:

The premise of your initial post of course. The science says you are wrong

I'm always amazed at the mentality of Fisheries to state there is no 'demise' in Fish Stocks from the norm (normal).
Considering the 'norm' would have been the Australian waters BEFORE the start of Commercial Fishing about 140+ years ago.


You would hope the mentality would change soon one day to see an Australian Aquatic Entity (that involves Commercial Fishing as well)
proliferate Fish Stocks from the 'norm' into the positive equation.

But instead, we have to put up with silly 'scientific' drivel that side-steps the obvious as if the Australian Public doesn't care or even understands ...or sees the obvious.

...well 200,000 people registered in 1 week towards buying the meat produce from Indpendents that treat their Cows more humanely and are killed by 'order', not mass production.

Sounds like 'Change' to me.

They just go into other people's and nation's zones/waters.
They get better technology to grab whatever they missed previously.
The put more fishing rods on the beach per person.
The change the laws to suit themselves and not the Fish Stocks.
They consider the 'thousands' of other extinct species as "not a precedence to consider".
Its all about the Commercial Fishing $$$ and 'their' jobs ...rather than the many more jobs created by saving the Fish Stocks for LONG TERM resource and employment.
Look what happened to Canada and the drastic action they had to take upon their own Fishing Fleets, let alone any Foreign Fleet 'straddling' their National Ocean bounderies.

...even the ALP is trying to 'cash in' on the Conservation/Environmental scene because they know its the most popular national Topic and where the money is these days.
Lucky for them, the Greens are still 'dormant'.

pjb05 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 4:51pm:



What evidence do I have?  Hmmm...well when I was a kid you could easily catch plenty of good sized fish around metro areas. Now, there's nuthin.  And this same sentiment is echoed from all over.

C'mon aren't we past all that?  It's plain to see that overfishing has caused fish stocks to plummet, and if we keep on the way we have been, they will continue to plummet until they reach the point of no return.

And why?  So yuppies can have their omega-3 tablets, and cause professional fisherman can't be arsed getting another job.  I like fish as much as the next man, but I go without for the sake of future generations.  Fat lot of good it'll do when there's millions more who don't care.

LOL.  Yeah dude,  I was a much better fisherman when I was 8. 

That's exactly what it is.  Nothing at all to do with ocean life being pillaged for material gain.

... wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 5:22pm:



If there was 'nuthing left' as you claim I wouldn't matter how good a fisherman I was, would it? PS how do you figure that having the least fished waters in the World equals 'pillage'?

Wonder why the Fishing Industry can't pour its $$WEALTH into 'producing' more Fish Stocks than were available 'naturally' before the Havesting commenced.
I'm pretty sure you don't need a Scientist to tell you that you gotta produce the crop before you harvest it.
At the moment, its just been a few centuries of pure Harvest.
...and no, I don't mean 'production' of bland, fragile, immunised, grain-fed, pen-kept inferior fish.

Quote:




So please enlighten me.
The only fundamnetal differnce is that  one example is on land, the other is in the sea.  That's it.  Both fish and land animals need time and habitat to reproduce, to offset the numbers that are killed before their time.  Mankinds evergrowing popualtion, and their appetite will make sure that increasing numbers of fish are taken, without regard for preserving their numbers.

I might point out that I advocate a ban on COMMERCIAL fishing, not angling.  When more fish = more $$$, the fish are always going to lose out to greed.

Quote:



I have??  That's news to me, but I'm a sporting kind of gentleman.  Bring these points I have been 'nailed' on to my attention, and they will be addressed.

While I understand that fisherman are 'just another snout in the trough' I don't think you comprehend just how big a snout it is.

] Quote:



I have??  That's news to me, but I'm a sporting kind of gentleman.  Bring these points I have been 'nailed' on to my attention, and they will be addressed.

Have a look at the first parts of my post #34, ie the ones you chopped out in your reply.

While I understand that fisherman are 'just another snout in the trough' I don't think you comprehend just how big a snout it is.

I have offered some convincing evidence - your case is only backed up by a few dives in some undisclosed location.

/30#40 date=1307437935]pjb05 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 6:33pm:



post 34, post 34...ahh post 34.  

*reads over*

Nope.  nothing ground breaking, or 'nailing' there.  Your impression of your own debating skills appears to be over inflated.

You have done it again. Do you call totally avoiding these points 'debating'?

Look, if you'd seen what I have seen, you'd be convinced too.  I won't waste anymore time with this....but why do I get the feeling you'll NEVER be convinced, no matter what?

I am supposed to believe your 'evidence' which consists of undocumented dive observation limited to one location in a metropilitan area? Who is kidding who? I think your last statement is you projecting your own faults back on to me.

pjb05 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 7:38pm:



One does not need to avoid that which is not there.  No salient points means there is nothing for me to address.  I hardly think that 'I live in sydney and I catch fish' is the point to end all points.

But anyhoo, I giveth not a rodents derriere whether you agree with me or not.  I thought 'the science was settled' in that fish stocks the world over are under severe stress, but I see there are still pockets of dissenters.  Regardless, when I dive in the same spots year after year, and year after year remark that there doesn't seem to be as much life as the last time, I do not need to google a study to confirm what I have seen with my own eyes.

Jason Crowther wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 11:46pm:


So nothing I actually said was wrong, just something you imagined on my behalf?

Quote:


I admit you are confused.

Quote:


When was the last time you caught a snapper?

Quote:


Our cattle stocking rates are also much less. Does that mean it is relevant to compare stocking rates without context?

Quote:


LOL. Do you realise how naive and absurd your generalisations are PJ?

Quote:


Nice to know you set the bar so high. Almost half of our fish are either overfished or pushed to their limit, but so long as they don't go extinct you are happy?

Quote:


Except of course for all the times it doesn't work hey?

Quote:


I'm guess I just don't give myself the luxury of cherry picking the 'science' like you do.

BTW, is this meant to be your example of what I am wrong about?

I think you don't have to be a Scientist to work out that the majority of 'research & information' out there is expressing by more that 85% that Global Fishing is in dire straits and although Australia is probably one of the better waters ...if we put the statistic to the "pound 4 pound" ratio like they do in Boxing, in regards to our 'population'. We in fact would be just as bad and probably sending our Commercial Fishing Fleets into foreign Territories to take their fish for want of not having any in our own waters.

You think Scientists are so smart. Why do they support the backwards process of Harvest before Production? Why can't they promote growth in our Waters to make our seas the most productive in a NATURAL rather than Civilised way? Why is it that Recreational Divers need to 'dump' unwanted Ex-Naval Ships as "Dive Play Grounds" under the pretence of "Artificial Reef" as if they are doing it for the Fish and Environment as a priority?

Face it Jason/PJ ...if the Fish and "my god " the Snapper, aren't under any THREAT (which usually begins past the 50% mark)
...why then does the Fishing Industry need to Fish into the Santuaries/Reserves/Zones that have been set out, now that Barry O'Farrell has allowed them to do so?
Are things that 'desperate' out there that they need to exploit zones that barely make 10% of all of our waters?

Quote:



yes, you said the same thing yesterday.  The only problem is, you didn't say why the comparison was absurd, or how it showed ignorance.  If I didn't know better, It'd seem you were stumped....

... wrote on Jun 8^th, 2011 at 5:24pm:


I said fish were extremely fecund and were faster growing, and had more opportunity to hide. Doesn't that mean anything to you or are you deliberately trying to be obtuse?

Here's a reference:

Robyn Forrest and Tony J Pitcher
Year: 2006
Misguided Claims of Overfishing in New South Wales:
Comment on "Empty Oceans Empty Nets. An evaluation
of NSW fisheries catch statistics from 1940 to 2000"
email: R.Forrest@fisheries.ubc.ca


Two of the most important concepts in understanding the behaviour of harvested populations are those of ‘standing stock biomass’ and ‘production’. The standing stock biomass is the quantity of stock (or the total weight of fish) that exists at a given point in time. Production is the amount of stock produced (or new fish added to the population) over a given time period. Another important concept, ‘carrying capacity’, describes the maximum standing stock that can be supported by the available resources (food, habitat etc.). By definition, when a population of fishes is in its virgin, or unharvested state, we assume that it is at carrying capacity and, all
other things being equal, cannot grow any larger. If some of the virgin biomass is removed by harvesting, we expect that production will increase because there are more resources available for the remaining fish to grow and reproduce.

In most fish populations, the life-phase most likely to benefit from a reduction in standing stock biomass is the juvenile phase. Juvenile survival is expected to increase as intraspecific competition is reduced and this is reflected in the density dependent stock-recruitment
relationships commonly used in fisheries population dynamic models. Without such density dependent effects, it would be impossible to harvest fish populations at all without driving them to extinction (Walters and Martell 2004). The degree to which juvenile survival improves as stock size is reduced depends on the life history and behavioural characteristics of the particular stock (Myers et al. 1999). Species that show a very strong improvement in juvenile
survival as stock size is reduced can, in general, support higher harvest rates than species with a low improvement in juvenile survival (Schnute and Kronlund 1996).

Catches and catch rates in developing fisheries tend to follow a fairly well described trajectory (see Hilborn and Walters 1992). The initial exploratory phase tends to be followed by a period of high catch rates as the initial standing stock is fished down. Reduction in catches after the initial phase of a fishery is an inevitable part of fishery development and provides no evidence whatsoever as to the sustainability of a fishery.

Quote:

So what you are saying is that I know you know you are wrong and you are having difficulty coming to terms with it?

[ Quote:


So, no snapper in the harbour? How far offshore do you need to go these days? Would you catch them without a sounder?

You don't know anything do you FD. The harbour is full of juvenile snapper. They move offshore when they mature. The best fishing for snapper off Sydney is in close. I am often fishing in 20-25m of water and within 200-500m of the shore. I even catch them off the rocks with a long cast. My deeper spots are only about 1-1.5 miles out.

Yes I could catch them without a sounder. I never use the sounder to find snapper. It's handy for finding the right depth ot bottom type but as I said a 1970-80s model sounder could do that too.

Quote:


No you haven't. You ahve referred me to 'papers' by 'scientists' like Walter Starck that merely make the same feeble unfounded claims.

No, I pointed to the Seas Around US project of the Uni of British Columbia, that has measured primary productivity of the World's oceans.

Quote:


I did not make the comment about the bison PJ. Do you still think that it is a reasonable generalisation to say fish are fast growing?

Neither did I - it was Wesley Snipes comparison. Just because there are a few exceptions to the generalisation does not make it invalid.

Quote:


Right, I'm sure you can explain away ever stock collapse that has ever happened and convince yourself that it won't happen again because we have finally got it right, despite not really doing anything different. But you are not convincing anyone else.

Even you haven't denied we are getting better at it. You want us do abandon reason and experience for a faith based concept.

Quote:


I don't see them making the same silly generalisations as you.

No they didn't compare fish to bison, but they explained the same general concepts.

Sure, have far greater numbers and reproduce faster than bison.  But 1 bison goes a long way...how far does 1 fish go?  Hunting large animals, one could choose not to target pregnant females, but nets aren't quite so discriminating. 

All of which is rather redundant.  All animals need time to mature and reproduce, fish might do it faster than others, but they are also killed at a much greater rate. A single boat might take 10,000 fish, and say there were 10,000 boats, thats a lotta fish, killed indiscriminately.

In WA they have just proved that "just catching the Larger Snapper Males" is not occuring

Quote:


A few exceptions? It is so full of exceptions it is meaningless gibberish.

Quote:


No I don't. All of the arguments I have put forward are based on reason, not faith. In fact, it was you who admitted that you based your position on 'faith' in fisheries scientists - a faith they do not even have in themselves. It gets even sillier when you start attacking the whole scientific community because you can;t handle the facts.

Quote:


General concepts is often about as far as it can get with you. You still support minimum sizes as a fisheries management tool, despite the opbvious and forseeable problems they cause.

pjb05 wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 8:21pm:


So you are capable of considering hypotheticals after all? How far would it have to go before you supported marine parks as an alternative? Or would you prefer ever tighter limitations on which days of the year you are allowed to fish on? How many other fishermen do you think would support that approach?

Quote:


Is this your way of saying you have no idea why it was necessary or whether it was necessary? If it has not become an arms race, can you explain how much you spend on fishing?

Quote:


Name some what? Exceptions? Haven't you already conceded it is a generalisation with holes in it? Seeing it was in the context of the bison comparison, how about you name some fish species that grow as quickly as a bison?

Quote:


Plenty of very well qualified people make the same argument PJ. By the way, are you somehow qualified to reject what the scientists say?

Quote:


I am not getting caught out. I just can't always be bothered getting you to explain why you think your point is relevant.

Quote:


Yes I did. Very selectively of course, and in a way that they themselves would reject. But yes it is faith rather than reason.

Quote:


LOL. Let's see how this pans out on the other thread with your magical theories about selective pressure not applying under water.

pjb05 wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 8:21pm:


So you are capable of considering hypotheticals after all? How far would it have to go before you supported marine parks as an alternative? Or would you prefer ever tighter limitations on which days of the year you are allowed to fish on? How many other fishermen do you think would support that approach?

But marine parks are not an alternative are they. Closed seasons exist right alongside marine parks - as I have pointed out. They have more than likely contributed to the closed seasons too, as the displaced fishing pressure has to be limited.

Quote:


Is this your way of saying you have no idea why it was necessary or whether it was necessary?

Whether it was necessary of course. I am saying snapper may not be all that overfished and the closed season errs a bit on the side of precaution. Of course as to the reason what about the displaced commercial fishing from the GBRMP closures?

If it has not become an arms race, can you explain how much you spend on fishing?

It's a hobby. Plenty of people spend a lot on their hobbies. What I spend does not corelate to kilos in caught fish. For example some of my best trips in the past year took place 5 mins drive from my home off the shore and 25km from the coast, ie for practically no cost. I spend money on fishing gear/ methods which are less efficient but more sporting. Eg I buy top end jigging gear for kingfish when I would catch more on a simple outfit and using livebait. You dont know what you talking about.

Quote:


Name some what? Exceptions? Haven't you already conceded it is a generalisation with holes in it? Seeing it was in the context of the bison comparison, how about you name some fish species that grow as quickly as a bison?

I said faster growing AND more fecund AND more places to hide. There are not too many exceptions FD.

Quote:


Plenty of very well qualified people make the same argument PJ. By the way, are you somehow qualified to reject what the scientists say?

I think most would laugh at what you say.

Quote:


I am not getting caught out. I just can't always be bothered getting you to explain why you think your point is relevant.

You are just being deliberately evasive.

Quote:


Yes I did. Very selectively of course, and in a way that they themselves would reject. But yes it is faith rather than reason.

You are just mindlessly projecting what has been said about marine parks back on to me.  

Quote:


LOL. Let's see how this pans out on the other thread with your magical theories about selective pressure not applying under water.

Projection again. It has been said that there is much magical thinking about marine parks.

] Quote:


You can get 25km offshore for practically no cost?

Duh, 25km from the coast, inland, fishing from the shore in a river. I am hardly going to drive 25km offshore in my car am I?

Quote:


OK. Name a few that are faster growing and more fecund and have more places to hide than a bison.

Every popular commercial and rec species in NSW waters.

I just heard the 6 week closed season on snapper in SE Qld has been recinded. So much for ever increasing closed seasons, FD.

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 9:20pm:


Not any more - there won't be a closed season.

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2011 at 8:17pm:


The point is (sigh) it won't be happening again:

Snapper ban sinks under pressure
June 26, 2011 12:01AM

QUEENSLAND recreational fishers can raise their rods in triumph after the State Government bowed to community pressure and dumped a planned six-week ban on snapper next year.
In a move chalked up to people power, the Government will today announce it will not repeat its controversial ban that ran from February to March.
But under a new sustainability plan, which will be reviewed in three years, recreational bag limits will be reduced from five to four, and a voluntary online monitoring program will start.
A new recreational fishing advisory group will be formed to advise the Government on fishing policy.
Acting Premier Paul Lucas said the future of snapper could be ensured without imposing bans.
"We have to balance the need to protect this species, the jobs the fishing industry provides and the right for Queenslanders to chuck in a line,'' Mr Lucas said.
"We are still committed to rebuilding snapper stocks, but doing it in such a way that doesn't threaten industry or the Queensland way of life.''
Former Fisheries Minister Tim Mulherin announced the ban last year, citing studies that showed snapper stocks had plummeted by 65 per cent since the 1940s.
But the Government received intense feedback from mum-and-dad anglers, charter businesses and commercial fishers.
Businesses claimed they would lose income, while other anglers and some scientists said the measures would not help replenish stocks.
At the time, a Government regulatory impact statement for Rocky Reef Fin Fish Fishery also mooted a plan to tax anglers for catching snapper. But Craig Wallace, who was appointed Fisheries Minister earlier this year, dumped the plan, and recent meetings with peak fishing group Sunfish led to moves to end the six-week prohibition.
If another ban was held next year from February to March, it could potentially run into State Government elections and strip vital votes from some of Labor's coastal seats.
Mr Wallace yesterday described the changes as sensible.
"Queenslanders have a passion for fishing and for the wonderful seafood that this state's waters produce,'' Mr Wallace said.
"As a keen angler myself, I personally oversaw the consultation process to ensure community views were heard at the highest levels of government,'' he said.

Anglers can now only take 4 snapper instead of 5 and only 1 can be more than 70cm.

Sigh, you said/infered that closed seasons (bans in your words) would ever tighten unless we accept marine parks (which are seemingly no inconvenience at all). I recall a mention by you of being allowed to fish for snapper one day a year.

freediver wrote on Jun 29^th, 2011 at 6:53pm:


So what was all this in aid of?


"How restricted would you accept it before you supported an alternative like marine parks? Maybe when you can fish for snapper one day out of the year?"

"Other than incessant whinging from a minority of fishermen, what is this considerable cost?"

"How far would it have to go before you supported marine parks as an alternative? Or would you prefer ever tighter limitations on which days of the year you are allowed to fish on?"

freediver wrote on Jun 29^th, 2011 at 9:56pm:


I did, you just didn't like the answer. In any case it is more like a rhetorical device than a meaningful question.

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2011 at 9:03pm:


It's rejectable.

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2011 at 8:39am:


A ten year old would have. What do you think?

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2011 at 9:16am:



What do you mean by 'benefit of the doubt'?  You make it sound like I have done something wrong.

You could claim the question to be 100 different things in your search for a justification for not answering it. But the simple truth is that it is just question to ascertain how far it would have to go before you supported marine parks as an alternative. If your reasons for not answering are valid it can only mean that the question highlights some flaw in your argument that you seek to hide.

It is not a wild exaggeration. Just keep using your imagination.

lucky us in nz....no such bans, sure we have recreational quotas, but thats all good....still can get out there and hook up...LOVE FISHING!

Here's a link:

http://fishingsydney.blogspot.com/