I wouldn't just eat anything from up there that was caught privately. There are a few things you have to watch out for, like ciguatera.

Are you making your way towards some kind of point?

Well what would you know - there is even more evidence to back up my claims re Sydney Harbour. Why it even has more biodiversity and larger fish than our States marine parks!

UNSW Science

https://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/sydney-harbours-surprise-fish-thrive-amid-pollution

Sydney harbours a surprise: fish thrive amid pollution
Tuesday, 4 December, 2012
Bob Beale

Small-tooth flounder - a thriving Sydney species
Despite heavy human impacts – including record-breaking toxic sediments and rising nutrient pollution - Sydney Harbour’s marine life is richer than in more pristine marine parks nearby, new studies have found.

Recent biological surveys of NSW estuaries revealed that larval fish are more abundant and diverse in heavily modified harbours and bays. As well, adult fish in Sydney Harbour, such as flounder and snapper, are often larger than in less-modified estuaries.

Sydney scored best in comparison with Port Hacking, Jervis Bay and Bateman’s Bay, the latter two of which feature significant marine parks.

“It’s a wonderful paradox,” says Associate Professor Emma Johnston, who co-led a series of studies by the UNSW Ecology and Toxicology Group, in conjunction with Dr Melinda Coleman, a Senior Research Scientist at NSW Fisheries.

“This pattern extended to other communities of marine life and we saw more species richness and abundance of organisms living in the sediments, particularly bristle worms in Sydney Harbour.

“This apparently good news for Sydney Harbour is partly attributable to the reduced input of heavily toxic contaminants that has occurred since the EPA began regulating pollution in the mid-‘70s.

“Another explanation is the ongoing input of nutrients from diffuse sources such as stormwater run-off and sewage leaks.  It looks like they have given the whole system a kick – a bit like a fertiliser effect.

“Up to a point, the input of nutrients will increase productivity, but too many nutrients leads to algal blooms and fish kills. Determining when we might breach the threshold nutrient concentration is an important research question for Sydney Harbour.”

The researchers used baited underwater cameras to film and count fish. They also used nets to sample and weigh adult fish, as well as sampling invertebrate creatures in sediments.

“The whole food chain turned out to be more productive in Sydney Harbour,” says Dr Coleman.  “It is a naturally productive waterway anyway, but humans have added all those extra nutrients and all those extra structures for animals to inhabit – such as wharves, jetties, sea-walls and bridge pilings.”

Professor Johnston notes that the harbour’s saving grace is that it is well-flushed by fresh seawater, especially in its lower reaches

“We need to remember that commercial fishing was banned in the harbour in 2006, not least because we still have world-record levels of toxic contamination in sediments: eating fish  caught anywhere west of Sydney Harbour Bridge is not recommended.”

[]It's hardly a paradox. Make the fish too poisonous to eat,

There not too toxic too eat, liar, only west of the harbour bridge you are not recommended to eat them!

fertilise it with large quantities of dog crap, and there will be more of them. They will be bigger.

It's only a theory that man made fertilisation is a factor. They then go on to say the Harbour is well flushed with seawater and it is naturally highly productive.

Let me know when you get round to making a point. [/quote]

Apart your blatant cherry picking above, my point was that you said that Sydney was the most overfished location in Australia and crying out for marine parks. Now we have research that shows it is more productive than the States marine parks!

Quote:


OK then. So tell us PJ, why are you recommended not to eat them?

You are not recommended not to eat them, you pea brained moron. There are guidlines as to where and how much you can eat.

Why are pro fishermen forbidden from catching them over the entire harbour?

It would be too hard to distinuish the harbour caught fish from the rest of the commercial catch and therefore impossible to give guidlines to the public.

Quote:


You will have to quote me. I must not have been aware that the fish are too toxic to eat. That would have pretty much the same effect on fish populations as a marine park.

You didn't make such qualifications when you said that Sydney was the most overfished area in Austrialia and that local fishermen go to 'extroidinary lengths' to get away from the area. PS there are commercial fishing bans in Botany Bay, Georges River, Port Hacking and Narrabeen Lakes.

PS the State's marine parks don't have over 4 million people on the doorstep!

Quote:


It does not show that at all.

The scientist said it was highly productive. You are saying black is white!

Productivity implies people catching the fish.

That doesn't make sense.

You have presented evidence that people are not catching the fish. You just don't understand the meaning of your own evidence.

No I haven't.

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2014 at 8:24pm:
Many fish along the NSW coast spend some time in Sydney Harbour. Many bream come out of the harbour and spawn along the beaches where they get netted. Pelagics come and go. Snapper spend their early years in Sydney Harbour and end up in the fish shop. People are eating Sydney harbour fish and they don't even know it.

[] Quote:


It is my understanding that pros cannot take anything from the entire harbour, and for recreational fishermen there are large areas that you should not eat anything at all from,

Thats more like it - so why did you misrepresent this to "it's not recomended that you eat fish from the Harbour"?

and for the remainder (the bits that get flushed with seawater every high tide) there is a complicated set of restrictions on total cumulative consumption.

More spin - the 'bits' you are allowed to fish are all of the main part of the Harbour. It's only west of the Harbour bridge that there is a ban, ie basically the Parramatta River.

No, the guidlines aren't complicated at all - though I realise most things are too complicated in your case FD.   


All of this so you do not poison yourself and give your children deformities. It would hardly be reassuring for local fishermen and is likely the biggest contributor to what you mistake for evidence of high productivity.

Thats just your theory for which multiple lines of evidence, including the comments from the UNSW, have discounted. And the local fishermen are from a population of 4.2 million. Do you really think that the rec take is insignicant or less than the other areas they compared to?

Quote:


In other words, because it is not fit for human consumption?

No, only some of them would be unfit and only if you ate them regularly.

Quote:


They are not saying that it produces a large quantity of seafood. They are saying it might - except of course that it is not fit for human consumption. [/quote]

Are you sure you are reading the same report? Do I really need to confront you with quotes? They said it is naturally highly productive compared to other areas, and contributing factors include man made nutrients and structures such as jetties seawalls bridges etc.