Something We have to Chat About

[Koalaboi]

Dunno what other FRs reckon but This Is Serious Mum!

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/shocking-fish-stocks-in-australian-waters-drop-a-third-in-a-decade-20180605-p4zjip.html

What needs to happen here?

Be interested to hear other FRs opinions as to;

a. reasons for the drop and

b. what needs to be done to secure viable fish populations in all species into the future

 

KB

[zmk1962]

Hardly a surprise give how long we allowed the super trawlers like the Geelong Star to operate in our offshore waters depleting essential bait fish from the ocean food chain.  Or prawn trawlers decimating the estuary weed bed spawning areas. 

Also there are numerous articles of trawlers targeting one or two species that hold the highest price at the markets, saving their cargo area for these species and dumping everything else as by catch. This type of indiscriminate raping of the ocean resources needs to stop.

Perhaps confiscate the boats doing this stuff in our waters....and maybe the fish stocks will have a chance.

And here's a novel idea... how about those that want to feast on fish - go and catch some - take only what you need.

Cheers

Zoran

(climbing off my soapbox now)

 

Edited June 5, 2018 by zmk1962

[kingfishbig]

I'd be inclined to take those figures with a grain of salt. Ie using catches as a guide to abundance (catches may have dropped due to less effort resulting from fisheries management measures), the use of 'citizen scientists' (ie amateurs) for diver surveys.  The theme (and a rather common one we have seen before) is that fisheries management has failed/ can't be trusted and so we need more marine parks.

PS: the super trawler wasn't in operation very long and it's quota was actually quite conservative, and we are talking about fast growing baitfish. It would have made next to no difference to fish nos.

[zmk1962]

8 minutes ago, kingfishbig said:

I'd be inclined to take those figures with a grain of salt. Ie using catches as a guide to abundance (catches may have dropped due to less effort resulting from fisheries management measures), the use of 'citizen scientists' (ie amateurs) for diver surveys.  The theme (and a rather common one we have seen before) is that fisheries management has failed/ can't be trusted and so we need more marine parks.

PS: the super trawler wasn't in operation very long and it's quota was actually quite conservative, and we are talking about fast growing baitfish. It would have made next to no difference to fish nos.

I knew my post would generate a reaction...and everyone needs to make up their own mind... setting aside the debate of how fishstocks are estimated how can something that takes 250 tonnes of fish per day be ecologically sustainable !  Even if its baitfiash... those baitfish have to eat something to grow... so the food they ate is GONE out of the food chain...  as a politician has said in the past - please explain!

[blaxland]

People ate around 73 million tonnes (81 million tons) of farmed fish—just more than half of the volume of fish that humans consumed—in 2014, the last year for which there was data. That’s out of total fish supply of 167 million tonnes; the remaining 20 million or so tonnes go into things like animal feed and medical products.

 

[kingfishbig]

The quota was a bit over 10% of the estimated stock, so like I said very conservative and unlikely to make much of an impact on fish nos or ecology. Maybe you are not aware that we have been taking more from a smaller area for years in the other small pelagic fishery (pilchards), without any apparent ill effects. It hasn't stopped the resurgence of the southern bluefin tuna in the same area for instance.  

[Blackfish]

Not arguing about the pressure on fish stocks and Im all for management, plus fish stocks are under threat   , but ...........

1)Who Run the  Aquatic Conservation Journal.

2) Quote  "Over-fished stocks include the eastern jackass morwong, eastern gemfish, greenlip abalone, school shark, warehou and the Grey nurse shark

Grey Nurse  Sharks haven't been commercially caught for many years

Gem fish have made a come back since they have been managed (every one old enough remember the late 70's to the Early 80's where they were smashed)

[Guest Guest123456789]

It’s incontestable that fish stocks have been rapidly declining over the years. To argue otherwise is to argue the world is flat.

what to do about it is the more important question and I suggest scientific resources focus on that.

[GoingFishing]

Humans have a significant impact on fisheries and theres no question about it. Were lucky to live in a country where there are rules and regulations to control (to some degree) the impact of our fishing on natural resources.

In other countries there are no such laws and the sheer magnitude of killing is unbelievable and in fact quite frightening.

Do we really think that all that killing overseas does not have an eventual impact on fish stocks here ? The ocean is one living breathing soul

All that being said, i always take scientific stats with a grain of salt as they love to practise interpolation... which put simply is guesswork. All it takes is for one factor in an equation to be wrong and the entire guestimate becomes redundant ( that swings both ways)

[zmk1962]

As fisherman... we are all inherently in-tune with the foodchain - that's the science that we use to catch our fish.  Destroy the baitfish, destroy the breeding hatcheries and you damage the ecosystem.  For those that can remember, think back to 1995-1999 when we had those terrible pilchard die offs (virus) in WA and SA. There is no dispute those events impacted the tuna fisheries, shark and other predator fish populations and even seal and penguin populations for years to come.  

Commercial fishing operations are coin operated. Why do we think that the super trawlers made their way to our waters? Because to @GoingFishing's point, they have decimated the fish ecosystems in their waters - and it was more economical for a super trawler to travel half way around the planet and fish here than to trawl around empty seas close to their homes. They didn't make the trip just for the sun - they had to to stay viable - and perhaps try and give a little time for their seas to try and recover !  

So to my way of thinking, we need to start by preserving hatcheries and bait stocks - because these are essential for any fish stock to rebound.

Then to @flatheadluke's point - fishstocks are declining what is the underlying science that is driving this.  We can debate the stats - but we know from our own fishing trips that the fish numbers are down.

Causes? Other research has shown that  the plankton population has dropped 40% since 1950.... that's nearly half less plankton floating around the oceans, producing oxygen (that we and the fish need). Plankton are food for krill, which is food for small bait fish etc.  Pollution and ocean temperatures have a big impact on plankton viability .....  

I guess the net of all this is, we all need to care enough to change some things. Imagine if we all dropped our excess consumption 25% - That would radically change the supply and demand equation. This needs to happen globally.  Also do we really need to flush all that detergent down the sink, or have that factory farm fertiliser runoff into our estuaries? Do we really need to have the few kg of prawns at the BBQ?  

(I recall seeing bycatch studies for the Hawkesbury which showed for each 1kg prawns caught, 100 juvenile fish were caught and usually died after being released) .

It starts with caring enough to change our ways - by taking only what we need - and changing what we spend our money on as consumers - as that will determine what shops stock and what industry produces and what ends up as crap in our oceans. 

I've had the (mis)fortune to travel a lot for work. The planet is a lot smaller than most people think -  all of us can visualise travelling Sydney Melbourne 44 times - well that is the same distance as travelling around the equator - the longest path around our little earth!  It ain't that big! 

Cheers

Z

PS - Now I'm really going to step of the soap box and get some shut eye. 

PS - I am not a greenie radical - check out my fishing posts, and videos !   I just try to stay aware of what's going on around me and care enough to try and make a difference.

 

 

[big Neil]

Interesting debate happening here guys. I'm often told that I have negative comments to say about issues. I prefer to think that I am a realist and if an issue appears to present me with negative opinions / conclusions...so be it.

This debate is like the debate on global warming and carbon emissions. It's a worldwide problem and I believe it can only REALLY be solved if EVERYBODY joins the debate intent on solving it GLOBALLY. Sure WE can do this or that and make a small difference, but the balance lies with EVERYONE PLAYING THEIR PART. Realistically, we all know that's not going to happen. If that presents as a negative opinion, it is. bn

[kingfishbig]

14 hours ago, zmk1962 said:

I knew my post would generate a reaction...and everyone needs to make up their own mind... setting aside the debate of how fishstocks are estimated how can something that takes 250 tonnes of fish per day be ecologically sustainable !  Even if its baitfiash... those baitfish have to eat something to grow... so the food they ate is GONE out of the food chain...  as a politician has said in the past - please explain!

 

The quota for the Geelong Star was 18,623 T for 2015-16 (12 months) and this means 92.4% of the stock is left to reproduce/ be food for other species. At 250T per day the quota would have been filled in less than 2 months which is a bit far fetched.

http://www.richardcolbeck.com.au/current_issues/geelong_star__faqs

[JonD]

There's always much finger pointing but statiscly most smaller comercial operators don't target the larger breeders, this is more a recreational ambition to catch the big jewfish and humpy head snapper. The Geelong star was sent from our waters where it decimated fish stocks in the Irish Sea.

In just the short fishing life of my kids we've witnessed the dramatic decline in fish stocks locally where we have no trawlers since the introduction of our local marine parks. Unfortunately there simply isnt enough policing of these marine parks and I can guarantee I could go to any of them down here and see people fishing in them.

Over the years I've found some very productive snapper spots where we only ever took 2 or 3 fish and released the rest, unfortunatly these locations have been pinched by local charter operators who will often do a charter in the morning followed by set lines in the afternoon. Some grounds now simply have no fish yet the finger gets pointed towards trawlers by these people who are taking everything. Sweep, wrasse, rock cod, sergeant bakers and even pike seem to be on the take list of charters here now, with no regards to the importance of trying to look after what little we have left. Flathead seem to be the only fish locally that seem to of increased.

Its well known that urchins are having a detrimental effect of kelp and other marine growths, yet the species like large snapper, blue grouper, large rock lobsters  can all be taken. Studies in NZ where these large urchin predators have been proven to greatly improve the marine ecosystem seem more to be ignored here. In fact governmeant have just permitted th taking of rock lobsters in our area on hooker commercially without any study of stocks.

To catch quality kingfish these days I'm better off heading to Sydney harbour rather that try around Montague island which was once a mecca for kings, yes we have the odd day but once one boat finds a few hordes of boats soon descend on the spot. 

Like most of us who travel with trailer boats we have all seen a decline everywhere we go. Taking a freezer in the 4x4 on those trips to bring home a heap of fillets all has its effects, a fish of 10-20 years old doesn't suddenly appear back once it's taken.

Its hard to capture an image of the true amount of rec boats fishing locally but the fact that 400 + boats can often log on with marine rescue on a calm weekend between Narooma and Bermagui isn't something we can say doesn't impact.

This is the same scene we now see at the snapper grounds, sea mounts and just about anywhere fish turn up.

  

[PaddyT]

Its interesting Jon that you raise this - i know a couple of the Sydney harbour charter operators pretty well and they are very big on conservation- they dont let their clients bag out and they generally dont let them keep meter plus kings and as such the fishery up here has improved out of site since I was a young bloke- this is mainly due to the removal of floating king traps and improved water quality in the Sydney area. The bottom fishing is OK up here but nowhere near the quality of Coffs or the Nth coast (long time since ive fished as far south as you are) I would argue that we dont need more regulation in our fisheries we just need the rules we currently have to be enforced- the biggest deterent to crime is the fear of getting caught- last time I was checked out by fisheries in NSW was over 20 years ago- the RMS and water police pull me over at least once a year. 

Funnily enough though ive fished up in Qld a couple in the last year and ive been inspected both times- in NSW the fish theives can operate with impunity.

[zmk1962]

4 hours ago, kingfishbig said:

 

The quota for the Geelong Star was 18,623 T for 2015-16 (12 months) and this means 92.4% of the stock is left to reproduce/ be food for other species. At 250T per day the quota would have been filled in less than 2 months which is a bit far fetched.

http://www.richardcolbeck.com.au/current_issues/geelong_star__faqs

Hmmm. Read the article and remembered that's what was published previously and promoted in the media at the time to justify why the ship was allowed to operate in Aus... it all looks nicely presented and palatable.

But does it pass the smell test. Consider, why would you send a ship of that capacity out here, unless you plan to fill it. 

Then have a read of this - the tone is a bit leftie - but bear with the language and read through the 5 points made...the accusations against the ship owner dumping 1.5m T of catch to upscale to a more profitable catch. As we have recently found with a lot of the whistle blowing (eg live exports) where there is smoke there is fire.

https://www.tradeboats.com.au/tradeaboat-news/boats/1602/5-horrific-facts-about-the-geelong-star-factory-trawler

Then also consider the Geelong Star is just ONE TRAWLER, and is not even considered a super trawler (its only 90m long, not the 130m required to be classified a super trawler).... How many trawlers are operating out there?  Here is a scan of just the Chinese trawlers working the south pacific May-Oct ...

This level of blatant exploitation cannot be good for fish stock - the ocean is a finite resource. 

As @big Neilsaid its a global problem - that we cant solve alone, but it starts with education and sharing information that we come across - you'll be surprised what is online these days.

As @JonD said, it starts with our own behaviour as rec fishermen.  Only take what you need and be mindful of the habitat and the marine zones (they are the hatcheries) - I'd go one step further and take photos and report the buggers that are disrespectful of bag limits and fishing zones ....which is exactly @PaddyT's point....enforce the rules we have.

And @kingfishbig, I'd love to go chase some hairtail with ya.... the conversation would certainly keep us warm well into the night.

Anyway, I've nominated 2 ideas as to why fish stocks are declining - i) unprecedented/indiscriminate trawling  ii) the pollution driven plankton decline.  Any others ?

Cheers

Zoran

 

[Volitan]

I think the first step is to sponsor enough high quality research to be able to answer the salient questions.

once fish stocks are quantified and the population dynamics understood then we can work out how to manage them.

currently we really don’t know how many fish are out there, what populations are declining and which are stable. Everyone talks anecdotally, and commercial interests talk loudest of all. Anecdote doesn’t cut it and commercial interests should be ignored, we know exactly what they will always say.

currently, we don’t even understand enough about some of our major commercial species to be sure where and how they spawn.

engineering 101 - you can’t manage a system till you understand how to measure it.

[kingfishbig]

4 hours ago, zmk1962 said:

Hmmm. Read the article and remembered that's what was published previously and promoted in the media at the time to justify why the ship was allowed to operate in Aus... it all looks nicely presented and palatable.

But does it pass the smell test. Consider, why would you send a ship of that capacity out here, unless you plan to fill it. 

Then have a read of this - the tone is a bit leftie - but bear with the language and read through the 5 points made...the accusations against the ship owner dumping 1.5m T of catch to upscale to a more profitable catch. As we have recently found with a lot of the whistle blowing (eg live exports) where there is smoke there is fire.

https://www.tradeboats.com.au/tradeaboat-news/boats/1602/5-horrific-facts-about-the-geelong-star-factory-trawler

Then also consider the Geelong Star is just ONE TRAWLER, and is not even considered a super trawler (its only 90m long, not the 130m required to be classified a super trawler).... How many trawlers are operating out there?  Here is a scan of just the Chinese trawlers working the south pacific May-Oct ...

This level of blatant exploitation cannot be good for fish stock - the ocean is a finite resource. 

As

Cheers

Zoran

 

We are talking about Australian stocks are we not? What is the relevance of Chinese trawlers outside our 200mn EEZ? Also it's doubtful that our fish stocks have declined as the study suggests. They are using catches as a guide to abundance with the base line of 2005. But a year later Commonwealth fisheries were restructured with a lot of the effort being removed:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-06/australian-fish-stocks-declining-by-30-per-cent-research-finds/9837930

I am not sure what your point is regarding dumping and upscaling as the accusation was against the ships owner who was not involved in the Australian venture. It was leased by an Australian company as closely monitored by AFMA with cameras and on board observers. Also the allegation was 1.5 m kilos so you are out by 1000:

 

It gets worse

Parlevliet & van der Plas is one of the world’s largest factory-freezer companies. And if its environmental record is anything to go by, I’d be nervous about its ships frequenting Australian waters.

In 2012, a French court ruled that a Parlevliet & van der Plas subsidiary was guilty of illegal fishing and slammed it with a €595,000 fine. That’s almost $AUD1,000,000, issued after one of its trawlers was busted red-handed with the equivalent of more than $AUD1.8 million of illegally-caught fish stashed in its freezers!

It’s no surprise that Parlevliet & van der Plas are on the Greenpeace blacklist, no mean feat given that Greenpeace reserves blacklisting for the most severe offenders. Greenpeace alleged that the company falsified logbooks after allegedly dumping — no joke — 1.5 million kilos of perfectly edible fish into the ocean, an illegal practice known as "high-grading". Why? According to Greenpeace it was simply to re-catch fish that were slightly bigger and therefore more profitable. The accusation came from a former crew

 

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by kingfishbig

[fragmeister]

Hi Raiders,

WARNING! LONG POST!

I have been watching this thread with interest.

It is such a difficult task to actually find the truth behind the information in the public domain... so many commercial interests at stake on one side and so much emotion in play on the other.

I literally spent hundreds of hours researching this topic a few years ago trying to make some sense of the data while trying to be as dispassionate about it as I could.

I could probably argue a solid case for both sides of the argument but in the absence of enough time and limited access to unbiased information, I would tend to play a conservative hand and revert to what would seem to make sense from a different point of reference. So I look back at basic rules in the natural environment for some insight.

Presumably, before humans were able to exploit natural resources in the way that technology allows there was a natural order and balance. Populations of any one species would wax and wane depending on availability of food, number of competitors for that food, habitat, and predators. Populations of other dependent species would also wax and wane depending on the success or failure of interdependent species.

If the conditions for krill were less than perfect their numbers were diminished and so were the creatures that lived off them so the numbers of both diminished accordingly. This is not really a problem because the Krill bounce back very quickly - that's the way the system works  - the species lower down the food chain reproduce in a shorter time and in greater volume. If the recovery rate of the creatures lower down the food chain was slower that the one above the system would fall over.

Generally, the further you go up the food chain the longer the reproduction cycle is and the less populous the animal is comparatively. Think whales, Lions etc.

It probably goes without saying that if you massively increase the numbers of a top-level predator  like a lion, for example, it will have a devastating impact on the grazing animals but eventually, the prey will drop to a such a level that the predators will die off through lack of food and, because of the animals lower in the food chain can reproduce faster the  system will revert to a balanced state again in a relatively short time.

The system is fairly simple really and it would seem it has been self-regulated for millions of years.

Now, however, there is a new top-level predator on the block. One who does not accept that if a food source becomes scarce that it will die off. This new top-level predator simply finds more efficient ways to catch the prey or moves to another prey that is more abundant. That's me and you of course or at least the human race as a whole.

What we believe ( or hope) is that we can manage these natural resources so that we do not push them into that "zone of no return" where their population levels will not allow a reasonable recovery rate or worst are forced into extinction. This is what we are all banking on and I suspect its a lot harder to do that all our "experts" think it is.

Certainly, the position of any commercial operation is biased.

Certainly, the position of any scientific study overtly or secretly funded by commercial interests is biased.

Certainly, any environmental group study will be biased.

Certainly, when you dig a little deeper, most publications are from one of these sources and as such, I find it difficult to award full credibility to any.

I hate sitting on the fence so I would be interested in any purely unbiased information on the subject and if any Fishraider comes across any please let me know.

Cheers

 

Jim

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kingfishbig]

30 minutes ago, fragmeister said:

 

Now, however, there is a new top-level predator on the block. One who does not accept that if a food source becomes scarce that it will die off. This new top-level predator simply finds more efficient ways to catch the prey or moves to another prey that is more abundant. That's me and you of course or at least the human race as a whole.

What we believe ( or hope) is that we can manage these natural resources so that we do not push them into that "zone of no return" where their population levels will not allow a reasonable recovery rate or worst are forced into extinction. This is what we are all banking on and I suspect its a lot harder to do that all our "experts" think it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, but apart from wild caught fisheries very little of our food comes from hunting. It's agriculture and our ability to raise livestock that has allowed our population to grow. Also there is aquaculture. So there are always alternative food sources to fisheries, but they are not without environmental impact as well. 

[fragmeister]

35 minutes ago, kingfishbig said:

 

Yes, but apart from wild caught fisheries very little of our food comes from hunting. It's agriculture and our ability to raise livestock that has allowed our population to grow. Also there is aquaculture. So there are always alternative food sources to fisheries, but they are not without environmental impact as well. 

This is where the numbers need to be viewed in perspective as it can be easy to be misled by the "facts"

I agree, only a relatively small amount of protein comes from the sea when compared to other sources such a grain and livestock production.  However, what needs to be pointed out is that it's not the percentage of the total that is important, its the volume of the individual resource that matters.

 

 

 

 

 

[kingfishbig]

27 minutes ago, fragmeister said:

This is where the numbers need to be viewed in perspective as it can be easy to be misled by the "facts"

I agree, only a relatively small amount of protein comes from the sea when compared to other sources such a grain and livestock production.  However, what needs to be pointed out is that it's not the percentage of the total that is important, its the volume of the individual resource that matters.

 

 

 

 

 

Well fish stocks seem to be doing quite well in developed countries, eg Australia, NZ, Iceland, USA. 

[savit]

23 minutes ago, kingfishbig said:

Well fish stocks seem to be doing quite well in developed countries, eg Australia, NZ, Iceland, USA. 

No surprise,  a day fishing permit for some Icelandic salmon rivers may cost as much a few Stellas.  In many areas you are not even allowed to use lures, only flies. Though restrictions are mostly related to freshwater/estuary.

[fragmeister]

11 hours ago, kingfishbig said:

Well fish stocks seem to be doing quite well in developed countries, eg Australia, NZ, Iceland, USA. 

Yes,  Australia and a few others seem to be doing a much job of things. I guess that's a population pressure thing in part but also a public pressure thing. I think in general Australians are aware of environmental and conservation issues - we just want some balance in the argument otherwise it just causes polarisation of opinion and that is completely unconstructive.

I tend to play devil's advocate in these things and that gets me labeled sometimes as a greenie and sometimes the opposite ( what is the opposite I wonder?)

Cheers

Jim

 

 

 

[zmk1962]

9 hours ago, fragmeister said:

labeled sometimes as a greenie and sometimes the opposite ( what is the opposite I wonder?)

Well you could have some fun with that...

Depending on the context of the label  "greenie" ...  the opposite could be an "expert" ....

But then in Aussie slang it could also be  "Conan!"  - as in a "destroyer" being the antonym of a "conservationist" ....  Perhaps we can start that slang as a FR thing -- you "Conan!" ... it could catch on -  maybe!

But I digress.... This topic was always going to be contentious and polarising and I knew that the first person to reply was going to get a lot of response.  

@kingfishbig, sincere apologies I misquoted the article (I was focused on a management report and sadly until I can retire fishraider is only a part time activity). My Bad!  and I will try to do better.  

So to correct myself,  in that operators case, yes it was 1.5m kg of fish.  And just so I get the math straight, and try and visualise that:

1.5m kg of fish.

1500 000 kg of fish.

1500 T (metric) of fish.

Holy shit! I can't even imagine that many fish — wasted.

Gees…. It makes my blood boil when I hear of rec fishermen at Browns catching their bag limit then continuing to fish and  "high-grading" to a bigger gemmie or blue-eye.  And that's a case of one fish at a time  — but this is 1500 T of fish.   There can be no justification for that activity ! None.    

Re Chinese trawlers. I posted the Chinese trawler activity, because that's the data that I had at hand.   I felt it related to my prior point about just how small the planet is as I firmly believe the planet is one biosphere … our oceans, currents and fauna do not obey political boundaries or nautical exclusion zones.  

Anyway, it seems that the one thing we all agree on so far is that the statistics used to justify any action are driven by the cause that has funded the statistical research and hence that the fish stock estimates are bogus... but its great news that Aus, US and Iceland are improving.  And I agree with prior views expressed that the better results are driven by regulations and enforcement. 

@fragmeister -  well written, well balanced views. You are 100%  correct….and I too sat for many years waiting for the definitive study to emerge that will appease my engineering background and hence help end the debate.

But mabe I'm just getting older and less patient - do any of us believer that study will ever happen? 

So  while we wait, we have the  fish stock models contrasted by very real fishing quotas  —  and the quotas are filled and sometimes even exceeded (high-graded). …. and we have no true idea what that quota represents in terms of the fish stock population and resiliency.  Australian waters or elsewhere.

The two things I know is in the 30+yrs I have been boating and fishing (in Australian waters), 

i) the fish are definitely fewer and farther between.  

ii) as a rec fishermen, with my level of success the only thing I continue to decimate is my bank account.

Anyway, I have offered my two thoughts two the original post. Seems we have spent a lot of time debating one of them and concluded that Australian fish stocks are better than the rest of the world and that the original article is wrong.

Buggers me why that does not match my experience. Maybe I'm fishing in the wrong Australian waters and/or just a lousy fisherman!  Both could be true (be kind in your replies guys!)

Cheers 

Zoran

 

 

 

[fragmeister]

@ZoranBut maybe I'm just getting older and less patient - do any of us believe that study will ever happen? 

True enough mate.

@zoran Buggers me why that does not match my experience. Maybe I'm fishing in the wrong Australian waters and/or just a lousy fisherman!  Both could be true (be kind in your replies guys!)

Same for me... judging purely on performance  I was a much better fisherman 30 years ago than I am now.  Even though am more experienced and I have much better "tools" at my disposal.

You and I know ( and all those fishermen who of the same vintage know) that its a decline in fish and not a decline in our skills that is behind the whole thing.

Cheers

 

Jim