Longling Fleet Reduced To Less Than 30 Boats

[Ross Hunter]

We lost the State elections and as fisherman we will now pay with more and more Marine Park closures that will be evident in the future. The grey nurse shark debarcle will shut down miles of our waters if the Greens have their way. All scientific evidence on these sharks has been most scant and proven inaccurate. The real intruder and danger to the shark population are the commercial set line iopperators These are line set overnight for the poor harmless wobegong shark ... A recent catch was 1.3 tonne of wobbies in an overnight set and that's far too many. These lines with up to 400 hooks can be set around and are still set around grey nurse haunts. I can immagine the nurses living in their ledges and caves during the daylight hours and moving around the surrounding reefs of a night to feed . Most of the hooks we see in these sharks would come from set lines. How many Raiders have ever caught a grey nurse? In my 50 years of offshore fishing I have not seen one and that includes the early era when there would have been plenty around.

I had dinner with (recreational diver and a most experienced authority on the underwater scene) Adrian Wayne who agrees with these thoughts He took channel 9 to a few spots he knew that were never in the initial study and they were loaded with grey nurse. This surprised Fisheries to no end. Personally, if a specie is in decline (and that has not been proven by the poorly reseached tagging program) I say ban all contact with it and let it recover, but in this instance there will be "No Fishing within 1500 metres of a grey nurse habitats", but the divers (bubble heads) are allowed to dive down with camera flashes going all day and "harass the hell out of them". One out all out I say....What do you guys reckon?

We will be invaded by more closures and less areas for recreational fishing just wait and see and all done without scientific research.......I now talk about coastal waters.

At least the Federal Liberal Government with their 220 million dollar buy out of oceanic commercial licences have achieved a great result with the majority of deep water trawl, drop liners and long liners opting to take the buy out. This has reduced the operating long line fleet by 75% and that means a lot less pressure on our yellowfin, marlin and broadbill stocks within the 200 mile zone. We still have a lot of pressure from the International fleet but that is improving with the new quota systems.

It just shows that if you make enough noise for long enough someone listens in the end. These stocks will recover and recover reasonably quickly Especially with the fast growth factor of the yellowfin tuna.

It is good news and is a major step in protecting our oceanic species.

[arpie]

Longling Fleet Reduced To Less Than 30 Boats, And that's from 140 approx and that is good

Yahoo!! That is good news ..... now lets get the professional fishermen out of Wallis Lake! (unfortunately, 2 of them are buddies!) Lake Macquarie is booming with fish & tourism since they were kicked out of there!

Roberta

[arpie]

The real joke up here with the new Marine Park that has just come into law last week is .... wait for it .......all the pros that previously raped and pillaged the baitfish from One Mile Beach to Cape Hawke will be allowed to continue!!! No-one else can!!! Absolutely stupid!!! They have already broken the food chain - you don't see the pelagics that used to cruise around the headlands & breakwalls. It is disgusting!!

I thought the Marine Park was supposed to assist the area to regenerate fish stocks!!

Grrrrrrrr Don't get me started!

Did you know that if you catch a fish whilst drifting & it pulls you into the Marine Park, you are supposed to cut it off???? STUPID!!

Enough already!

Roberta

[henryinnis]

This whole greens situation is stupid..... Someone should inform them that they need to RESEARCH sites first before coming to conclusions. When they do come to their conclusions, they should do so in a logical an UNBIASED manner!

Cheers,

Henners

[Laredo]

I agree with the need for more research and limiting commerical fishing and banning all inshore commerial fishing.

However, I don't understand the problems you guys have with divers on marine sites. I don't think divers or underwater flashes has a detrimental effect on marine life

I also don't agree with the unconditional opposition to marine parks that most rec fishers have.

They have been great in NZ with 'spillage' (ie. fish stocks improving outside of park borders) which is certainly a good thing for us rec fishers

[pjbink]

I agree with the need for more research and limiting commerical fishing and banning all inshore commerial fishing.

However, I don't understand the problems you guys have with divers on marine sites. I don't think divers or underwater flashes has a detrimental effect on marine life

I also don't agree with the unconditional opposition to marine parks that most rec fishers have.

They have been great in NZ with 'spillage' (ie. fish stocks improving outside of park borders) which is certainly a good thing for us rec fishers

Perhaps this will explain why we have a problem with divers:

http://www.underwater.com.au/messages.php/id/7066/

How anglers are killing the grey nurse shark

Some legal action to push the Australian government to do more about the conservation of Grey Nurse Sharks than just announcing the fact is is now critically endangered is underway at the moment. The story in Sydney Morning Herald today:

Legal action to save an endangered shark could, if successful, put further restrictions on the fishing fraternity, writes Wendy Frew.

Divers are joining forces with the greenies to ban angling in all know grey nurse shark aggregation sites. No doubt because they like the idea of having private dive sites!

As to the spillover effect it is just a theory. There is not a lot of hard evidence to support it. Its against ecological principles for any spillover to make up for the lost grounds. So poorer fishing is more likey outcome. The most that has ever been demonstrated is about 30%. Usually only about 10% spills over. In the case of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park there is virtually no demonstrated spillover effect (long running Mapstone-Ayling study).

Most studies of reservers lack rigour and have huge biases:

1) insufficient sample replication (for example only one site sampled inside and outside a reserve, or no control sites sampled at all);

(2) spatial confounding (for example all control sites located only at one end of the reserve, so that comparisons are confounded by unknown location effects);

(3) lack of temporal replication (most studies consist of surveys done at only one time);

(4) lack of replication at the reserve level limiting the generality of results (although in many cases this reflects the number of reserves available); and

(5) non-random placement of reserves, i.e. often reserves are sited to include ‘special’ or unique features, which causes difficulties in selecting valid control sites (this is obviously no fault of the researchers).

To date, there are no well-designed studies that avoid the above problems as well as possessing a time series of ‘before’ and ‘after’ data.

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/cons/burdens.pdf

[Ross Hunter]

This whole greens situation is stupid..... Someone should inform them that they need to RESEARCH sites first before coming to conclusions. When they do come to their conclusions, they should do so in a logical an UNBIASED manner!

Cheers,

Henners

Lerado

Jeez! mate you could be the next Nicole Kidman if you really believe that the Grey nurse sharks enjoy the plagues of divers ( bubble heads) flashing cameras at them ten times a day on the hour every day. These are wild fish and why would they enjoy that sort of privacy invasion, it's just not on "one out all out...no compromise!... No fishing ...no diving" I say just leave the poor things alone. If that's what we've got to do by law.

Ross Hunter

[pjbink]

Ross,

Do those figures on Longliners apply to NSW, the East Coast or Australia wide?

[Ross Hunter]

Ross,

Do those figures on Longliners apply to NSW, the East Coast or Australia wide?

Billfisher,

Those figures are for the NSW east coast only and are for Aussie long liners only. It is a massive reduction of hooks in the water and that's all good. The rest of the fisherman that have chosen to stay in may too take the buy out before the offer runs out.There is of course the International fleet that are even more efficient than the Aussies but that is out of our hands a little.

[pjbink]

Billfisher,

Those figures are for the NSW east coast only and are for Aussie long liners only. It is a massive reduction of hooks in the water and that's all good. The rest of the fisherman that have chosen to stay in may too take the buy out before the offer runs out.There is of course the International fleet that are even more efficient than the Aussies but that is out of our hands a little.

A least international longliners aren't allowed within our EEZ, which is 200 miles. Yellowfin mostly stick close to the continental shelf.

[Gamerod]

A least international longliners aren't allowed within our EEZ, which is 200 miles. Yellowfin mostly stick close to the continental shelf.

ROSS AND GLEN KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. YOU ARE THE BLOKES WHO KNOW THE FACTS. WITHOUT YOU

THE PEAK, 12MILE, PLONK HOLE AND BROWNS ETC MAY BE A MEMORY IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

THERE IS STILL A NEED TO LOOK AT THE DROP LINES THERE.

NOT FORGETTING ABOUT THE LARGE AMOUNT OF AREA THEY WANT FOR NATIONAL PARKS IN CLOSE.

WE NEED PEOPLE IN THE KNOW TO WORK WITH THE GOVERMENT, AS THEIR INFORMATION/REPORTS ARE NOT WORTH THE PAPER THEIR WRITTEN ON.

THE HUMAN WINCH CHAFF.

[pjbink]

Check this out:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-parks...ement-tool.html

This clown thinks marine parks are doing us a favour because we won't need our boats any more. He wants the parks around large population centres too!

Edited May 5, 2007 by billfisher

[maniak]

Hi Guys,

Commercial fishers with a line west endorsement are allowed to set a maximum of ten (10) set lines within three miles of landfall (including all islands) each with a maximum of (6) hooks ie that is a total of sixty hooks. I have been using this method for thirty years and interaction with GNS has been minimal with no fatalaties and less than 10 hooked and released unharmed in that time. Fishers targetting Wobbegong have, several years ago, also agreed to a code of practice to use only mild steel hooks, nylon traces (no stainless steel) and to avoid grey nurse areas. It is in the fishers interest to avoid these areas as GNS besides being protected are of no value at all. Set lining is also the first method to be banned within a 1.5 kilometre af all GNS agregation sites.I believe that by attempting to aportion blame on other fishers those that make false claims and misinformation are only putting more pressure to remove all effort including recreational. The truth is ALL fishermen rec and pro have an impact. The attitude that what I do is alright but the other bloke is the crook doesn't wash with anyone that has half a brain.

Regards MAP

[pjbink]

I would have thought that the fact that the commercial set lines are not attended makes them a greater risk to the GNS. How often are the lines checked maniak?

[maniak]

I would have thought that the fact that the commercial set lines are not attended makes them a greater risk to the GNS. How often are the lines checked maniak?

I generally set lines for about 6-12 hrs or less, sometimes overnight sometimes during the day depending where I am working. I am not trying to distort the facts. As I said I have had minimal interaction with GNS over a very long period. It is not in my interest to fish in areas where they are likely to be caught. My point is that it has been said during this discussion that up to 400 hooks per line are being used in areas of GNS aggregation sites with catches of 1400 kg. The aggregation sites I am aware of are all within the 3 nautical mile category and are subject to these rules. It is against the law to use more than 6 hooks per line with a max of ten lines and is also an offence to land more than 1000kg of any shark in one trip and an offence to set lines within 1500 metres of any aggregation site. What makes catching a "poor harmless Wobbegong" any different to catching any other poor harmless species? It is unbased false emotional rhetoric like this that the greens are using to and it is dissapointing to see supposed experts even if they are only self proclaimed ones using the same dubious tactics.

Regards

ManiaK

[Laredo]

Lerado

Jeez! mate you could be the next Nicole Kidman if you really believe that the Grey nurse sharks enjoy the plagues of divers ( bubble heads) flashing cameras at them ten times a day on the hour every day. These are wild fish and why would they enjoy that sort of privacy invasion, it's just not on "one out all out...no compromise!... No fishing ...no diving" I say just leave the poor things alone. If that's what we've got to do by law.

Ross Hunter

Ross, You sound more like Germaine Greer than I do Nicole Kidman

dive photography doesn't appear to stress fish and even if it did, its hardly going to harm them physically so lets concentrate on the real issues here, and abandon the 'if i can't have them, no one can' mentality that won't get us anywhere.

[Jewhunter]

O.K all listen up. Remember that this a REC fishing site & as rec fishos any reduction in the longlining fleet has to be good for us. I don't want to hear from divers or pro fishos with their own agendes. There are other websites & forums for you.

Be aware of the site rules. Rule 5 has been broken in this thread. There are to be no links to other forums without Admin approval. Some of you are within a whisper of breaking Rule 6 in regards to posts of a degrading nature. Keep this thread on track or it will be closed.

For those of you breaching site rules this is your warning. Do not do it again.

Jewhunter

Site Admin.

[pjbink]

Ross, You sound more like Germaine Greer than I do Nicole Kidman

dive photography doesn't appear to stress fish and even if it did, its hardly going to harm them physically so lets concentrate on the real issues here, and abandon the 'if i can't have them, no one can' mentality that won't get us anywhere.

Scuba divers also make a racket with all the bubbles they release underwater. Fsheries have brought in a code of conduct for divers, so they are worried about the effect divers have. The GNS stopped appearing at Magic Point South Maroubra - possbly due to commercial dive boats being camped there almost constanly.

Remember that divers have thrown their lot in with the greenies to get angling banned within 1500m of GNS aggregation sites as well as for marine parks in general. So don't complain, Laredo, if you get a bit of return fire!

Edited May 11, 2007 by billfisher

[Laredo]

the top and bottom of it is that diving does not kill fish

The biggest threat to the ocean and our hobby of rec fishing is commercial fishing.

btw Labour didn't endorse marine parks sole to 'brown nose' the greens.

The greens have always given preference to labour and will continue to do so. Sure, marine parks were the product of an ongoing relationship between the two but to dismiss the parks as nothing more then a brown nose is to sell yourselves short. Essentially, the marine parks are an effort to preserve the environment. I am not disputing that they are definitely far from perfect, but those things are worthing debating nonetheless.

Jewhunter: I'm not a diver, have never dived, and do not represent diving, I was simply debating an issue.

argument is healthy and often productive so I don't know why you would were care if I was a diver. Communication is what the internet is about

[pjbink]

The biggest threat to our sport is marine park lockouts. Lack of fish is not the problem nor is it likely to be. To suggest we ban all inshore commercial fishing is an extreme one and I don't know how you could justify it on any grounds - environmental, moral or economic. In any case most of our seafood is imported - and from waters far more heavily fished than our own.

[Jewhunter]

Jewhunter: I'm not a diver, have never dived, and do not represent diving, I was simply debating an issue.

argument is healthy and often productive so I don't know why you would were care if I was a diver. Communication is what the internet is about

Laredo.

I don't give two hoots if you are a diver or not. I do care when a thread degenerates into a free for all where boundaries are not respected.

You say that argument is healthy & often productive. Depending on who you are argueing with they can also be unhealthy & unproductive. If you wish to argue with me further please p.m me.

There are many forums where you can go & argue until you are blue in the face. I will not allow this site to become one of them.

Jewhunter,

Site Admin.

[Ross Hunter]

Jewhunter and Manick, Laredo

Jeez! what a hornets nest ......The reason I suggested no bubble heads around GNS haunts was because it is the divers that have complained and wanted fishing banned in these areas ...once again without any proof that these sharks are in fact in any real danger, especially from rec. anglers. Camera flashes and divers wanting to get that extra close photo is harrasment of the species, so why should that be allowed and fishing banned. In many long years of fishing around grey nurse areas like Fish Rock, Magic point and The Edith Breaker I have never hooked a nurse and that includes many overnight sessions. The point I was trying to make is why should fisherman be banned. yet divers allowed in by the thousands per annum...what's the difference..YOU SEE WE DON'T KILL THEM EITHER.

Leredo you are so right that good discussion is what it's all about.

Manick,

Many of my friends are commercial fishos. Some I respect and some are just plain greedy and ruthless in their attitude with no thought for the future, just a quid at the end of the week and the short haul.

I am a professional fisherman as well, in other words I have made my living from catching fish for my customers for too many years. I have watched the demise of many of our species over those 50 years and it is with concern that I mentioned the wobbegong set lines.You see my commercial friends have caught grey nurse sharks by accident on set lines and also have had catches of 2500kgs of wobbys in a week and that's overkill. How could a recreational angler be even compared to that sort of rape and plunder?

Have a look in fishing reports on this site. How many Raiders are reaching their bag limits or even want to? The modern recreational angler is avery conservation conscious fisho. I therefore will always stand up for recreational angling and the future of our fishery.

[bart]

MAY PEACE BE WITH US BROTHERS. LOVE BART.

[Laredo]

You see my commercial friends have caught grey nurse sharks by accident on set lines and also have had catches of 2500kgs of wobbys in a week and that's overkill. How could a recreational angler be even compared to that sort of rape and plunder?

Have a look in fishing reports on this site. How many Raiders are reaching their bag limits or even want to? The modern recreational angler is avery conservation conscious fisho. I therefore will always stand up for recreational angling and the future of our fishery.

Dont get me wrong I agree completely that the impact of recreational fishing is inconsequential compared to commercial. Clearly pro fishing is the greatest threat to stocks. For one there shouldn't be any profishing is any estuaries. Its common sense that that is a bad idea. Thank god they banned the pros in Sydney Harbour because i think I've be physically sick to watch them work these days.

Though I've agreed that rec fishing in practically incomparable to pro in terms of impact I think everyone who eats or kills a fish should be aware of the need for conservation. In fact, I'd support halving rec bag limtits and making maximum keep sizes

I find it disturbing to know that our estuaries and offshore grounds are greatly inferior to what they once were and I find news of longliners being halved in number very encouraging.

[Laredo]

The biggest threat to our sport is marine park lockouts. Lack of fish is not the problem nor is it likely to be.

I disagree.

Lack of fish is a problem. You need only read Ross Hunter's memoirs from the 70's to or look at old black and white photos of guys with 50 big jewies in a 3.5 metre tinny. Or trawl livies all day for not a touch at once thriving reefs to know that Sydney stocks are down. People just lower their standards to match declinging stocks and forget that areas are sub healthly.

international and local profishing is currently excessive.

And for me your arguement that overfishing isn't a problem because once stocks get really low commerical fishing ceases to be eonomically viable and stops allowing the species to crawl their way back is highly depressing. It is not acceptible to overfish a species until it stops being commericial viable. Thats not a natural or healthy cycle. It would also bung up the food chain.

. To suggest we ban all inshore commercial fishing is an extreme one and I don't know how you could justify it on any grounds - environmental, moral or economic.

Environmental grounds for banning estuary pros: They destory the habitat, food chain and stocks. Estuary profishing isn't sustainable and is terrible for the environment. What more do you want? I'm no expert, but they mustn't make any good money for all the damage they cause, either.

moral grounds:buy backs are fairly generous considering they are all just scraping by at the moment due to the lack of sustainability.

economic: They don't generate much economic activity. Compared to the surges in rec fishing industry that would no doubt follow such bannings.

What wrong with buying back estuary pro fishing licences? I'd go for it no hesitation

In any case most of our seafood is imported - and from waters far more heavily fished than our own.

Yes. Alot of the time it comes from countries with no environmental sanctions and theirstocks are already pillaged. Eating Nile Perch our like species is basically exploiting the third world. The local populations there can only afford to buy the frame of the fish - yes the same part we throw back. Its disgusting

There should never be any compromises about (or apologies made for) over fishing.

Cheers