Ranger 48 Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 One from me also! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pescados 1 Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Karma from me as well.One problem I see with commercial fishing in relation to recreational fishing is that if we catch under size fish we have to return them yet when the pro's catch under size fishin their nets, the fish are dead by the time nets are hauled in.So should the under size be returned ?As far as limits are concerned how many rec fishers can get over the limit ??Boaties maybe but no such luck for landbased.ykmv. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rocknev 2 Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 davetheslave wrote:A pity they don't do some research into possibly making feed pellets or similar for the kingfish and tuna from all the carp in our waterways. Carp are already used as bait for the crayfish industry and crabs like em too, surely it would be worthwhile spending a few dollars seeing if the tuna and kingfish might find them palatable, maybe start a new industry, ease the pressure on our pilchard stocks and help rid our waterways of carp.they feed the kingfish in the pens here pellets... bro got given some by one of the workers out there... and do they swell when they get wet.artificial fatteners.twice their size the nuts became after a few minutes in the water....long enough for the fish to eat them when they are small, then swell inside the guts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fishie 98 Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 "So should the under size be returned ?"I think some of those get shipped across the border where they'll be of legal size Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pescados 1 Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Fishie wrote:"So should the under size be returned ?"I think some of those get shipped across the border where they'll be of legal size That is one big problem in this country, one country but but probably 8 different sets of rules. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
coight 0 Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 just to add, now i havn't had time to read the whole thread. But spoke to my best mate about the topic yesterday, he works for the fisheries and said pretty much it aint gunna happen. Reason being that every tom dick and harry they suspect would mean they would have to obtain a warrant.The main people they target are people who are defiling the Ab population. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fishie 98 Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 "Reason being that every tom dick and harry they suspect would mean they would have to obtain a warrant."Yep! it all sounds waaaaaay too hard... better off finding an easier target to pick on Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gardy 0 Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Gardy mate there are a lot of alternative feeds fellaOnce again do some researchAll and I mean all of the alternatives contain fish oilno brainer to know where they get fish oil fromlike I said aquaculture has put unbearable demands on wild fisheries so much so that some countries can no longer sustain themselves on their wild fish catch because countries like Australia and USA have robbed them of their pilchards etc for aquacultureIm talking about countries along the east coast of Africa Do some research Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gardy 0 Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 they suspect would mean they would have to obtain a warrant.Read the new fisheries management actThey no longer are required to have a warrant Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pescados 1 Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 coight wrote:Reason being that every tom dick and harry they suspect would mean they would have to obtain a warrant.OK does that mean than if a fisheries officer approaches me and ask to look in my bucket I can refuse ?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
statesquider 0 Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Gardy i'm not going to get myself in an argument over this, I have done my research and I have looked into it and like with all things that are researched over time they develop better methods of obtaining the things they need. How they obtain feed now could change massively, they are researching using different oils such as canola. So look at the big picture and do your own research, drop it and just go fishing! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gardy 0 Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 you obviously haventthere is plenty of reading supporting what i have saidVietnam alone uses between 1 and 2 million (thats right Million) tons of fish alone in any one year to feed aquaculture fishThe figures are astoundingas to replacements In general, over the years, and especially since the aquaculture sector was alerted to the potential problem on fish meal availability, as a possible limiting factor in its growth surge (Wijkstrom and New, 1989), the emphasis has been to concentrate on finding suitable alternatives for fish meal. Needless to say these efforts havent had much impact on the sector, but primarily on industrial scale fish culture, and particularly on relatively high valued, mostly cold water cultured species such as the salmonids. What can not be ignored is that in Asia, the cradle of aquaculture development, by and large the practices remain relatively small scale, rural, often clustered together, and semi-intensive. This scenario is likely to be retained to the foreseeable future. Consequently, the impacts of fish meal replacement in feeds, for fin fish, may be of limited immediate significance in achieving sustainability and reductions in feed costs.so do some research Quote Link to post Share on other sites
statesquider 0 Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Not much of a scientist if your basing your argument off one journal article, I'm sure there are many others out there that contradict your argument but there are better things to do than to drag them up :woohoo: Have a beer and go fishing fella. Sorry for the hijack everyone, back to discussing the actual topic at hand.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rocknev 2 Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 pescados wrote: coight wrote: Reason being that every tom dick and harry they suspect would mean they would have to obtain a warrant.OK does that mean than if a fisheries officer approaches me and ask to look in my bucket I can refuse ??good question, i dont know, but i asume they have that kind of power...bit like safety and welfare blokes.... THE SERIOUS kind, who can even give a fine to a cop is the cop is acting in an unsafe manner.these guys dont need warrents i was told, they can enter any work place, ( even your backyard if your doing work on your own house)if they see something unsafe, they have the power to order you to stop.and hell ...you dont want to argue with these guys.the fine can and often is pretty hefty,. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
carps 1 Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 gardy and statesquid got a question for ya presume for a minute that the human race was taking 0 fish from the ocean ,,would those fish have normaly in turn eaten the pillie and tommies we take out to feed aquaculture now..there fore as we do take fish out the pillies are losing a natural predator in these fish so by taking them out for aquaculture we are actually balancing nature back out again Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gardy 0 Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 nature has a way of balancing thingsHumans intefere with that process and we end up with stuff ups Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rocknev 2 Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 anyone ever seen the show they did on the great sardine run?incredible footage of tens of millions of sardines... and after the dolphins, seal sharks and gannets have finished with them , there is almost nobne left.i was totally amased when i first seen this show on pay tv...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBd4sNHBnYc&feature=related Quote Link to post Share on other sites
weaver 271 Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 statesquider wrote:Not much of a scientist if your basing your argument off one journal article, I'm sure there are many others out there that contradict your argument but there are better things to do than to drag them up :woohoo: Have a beer and go fishing fella. Sorry for the hijack everyone, back to discussing the actual topic at hand....My thoughts exactly mate have karma Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest big lizard Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 #68685 Re:Possesion Limits 1 Day, 8 Hours ago Karma: 4 In my opinion it is pointless having possession limits for recreational fishers when there are no total allowable catch limits on the commercial sector. Simply what we don't catch they will. The commercial fisher’s freezers are full of King George whiting, Snapper and Gar. Is this commercial possession of fish in freezers benificial to sustainable fishing? If you look at the commercial catch figures for King George whiting since the newly imposed recreational size bag and boat limits, you will see their catches have increased. These increased catches in my opinion have increased due to the recreational fisher's reduced catches.How has this helped with sustainable fishing practices and how has this increased the biomass of this species.Commercial fishing in regards to catches of snapper is also in a similar predicament. At the moment this fishery is said to be fully fished yet the commercial fishers can simply take what they like. Why regulate the recreational fishers when the commercial fishers can undo any benefit these regulations were set out to do.We have all seen what has happened in recent times regarding the gar fishery. This is the prime example of what can occur due to overfishing by the commercial sector. Take away some of the netters and the garfish biomass improves.Let's not forget that the commercial sector has achieved record catches of all our important fish species in more recent years. It has been a consequence of this overfishing that has seen our fisheries at unsustainable lowest levels.The recreational fisher has been regulated now for many years with size bag and boat limits. At the time of implementation we were told by the powers that be that this was necessary and in keeping with sustainable fishing. This is just my opinion but as far as I'm concerned I'm against any new regulations that may affect recreational fishing. When the authorities and PIRSA management get it right by implementing TAC limits on the commercial sector, only then will I take another look at possession limits as being another credible means towards sustainable fishing.Until then they can get nicked. yep stuff em well said...lol Quote Link to post Share on other sites
statesquider 0 Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 Haha have karma big lizard for your brutal honesty Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.