Thread: bream

I give up

mate if you spent all night and caught 300 bream ,at say 1 per 2 minutes thats 10 hours,and if you used prawns or yabbies etc, thats 300 prawns , or yabbies etc and you still had time to clean them as well? .will post on ausfish that has to be some sort of record, thats the good thing about no bag limits on bream,you can bag out one night , then go and do it the next,and not have to worry about where the next feed is coming from cause there is no limit, and they are plentifull , otherwise they would tell us hey . bob

Robyn,

Just a side note, he never claimed to have caught 300 fish in one night. 90 one night and 45 the next time.

Originally Posted by weisyboy

.

last year i spent all night at my spot and caught 300 legal size fish. and when cleaned they were all male.

Sound like it to me WB.

BTW Weisy what happened to those photos you said you would post.

My mistake I missed that post

Well, I suppose you've got to take all these claims with a grain of salt, however:

If there's no bag limit, and they're all legal size, and they all get eaten by someone, regardless of who that is, then what's the problem? Trawlers take a lot more than 300 fish in a haul don't they? What do you want to do? Stop eating fish and rape the planet to grow more beef, or should we all just turn into tree hugging vegan greenies?

If there was a problem with bream stock, then they should impose a bag limit and ban all fishing, including commercial trawling. I'm sure they put more of a dent in it than weisboy. If your worried about it, then stop eating fish because you're just as much a criminal for encouraging trawling.

Of course most of the detractors just want the stocks as high as possible so they can continue the sport with more chance of a catch, and they pat themselves on the back for being 'environmentally conscious', but if weisboy wants to keep his for eating, then that's his prerogative.
If you want fish stocks up, then petition fish shops to stop selling fish.

I don't fish much, but I buy fish with chips, and I don't feel guilty about eating it.

edit: I find it absolutely ludicrous that fisherman can believe that they're actually making much of a difference by throwing back a few fish, when you consider that a trawler will go out day after day, targeting entire schools of fish and throw back nothing at all. I think the only reason is to keep their favourite fishing grounds stocked up for sport, but bugger the rest of the oceans. The fish that you throw back would represent a miniscule percentage of the fish that are consumed in this world each day.

If you really want to validate your environmental concerns, then throw them all back and stop eating fish. Otherwise, you're only fooling yourself into believing that you have some concern for anything except your own interests.

No thats niave John. I eat fish quite a bit. There is a difference between recreational fishing and commercial fishing.

Fish stocks have plumeted over the last 20 years because of commercial and recreational fisherman practicing unsustainable fishing techniques. This trend has tried to be corrected by heavily regulating commercial fishing with quota's, no-go zones etc and by educating and sometimes regulating the recreational fisherman.

Petitioning fish shops to stop selling fish isn't going to increase fish stocks - chaining weisyboy to dry land may help!

So who are you going to deny the right to eat fish? The guy who lives a hundred miles from the coast and has no interest in fishing?

As I said, the only way to validate your concerns are to stop eating fish yourself, and pursue it simply as a sport.

If you eat them yourself, then your just as criminal as any trawling company.

Unless you want to impose a quota of fish consumed per person, regardless of their interest in the sport of fishing, then we're all as guilty as each other of depleting fish stocks. In fact fishermen are probably more guilty than others, because they probably consume more than the average quota of fish. They're just more interested in keeping their own fishing grounds stocked up.

Originally Posted by pawnhead

edit: I find it absolutely ludicrous that fisherman can believe that they're actually making much of a difference by throwing back a few fish, when you consider that a trawler will go out day after day, targeting entire schools of fish and throw back nothing at all.

Errr John, recreational fishing and the money it generates from licenses has resulted in a reduction in commercial fishing in places like Sydney Harbour which has seen fish stocks bounce back so not sure your point is valid.

HH.

Originally Posted by HappyHammer

Errr John, recreational fishing and the money it generates from licenses has resulted in a reduction in commercial fishing in places like Sydney Harbour which has seen fish stocks bounce back so not sure your point is valid.

HH.

My point exactly. Keep the harbour stocked up for us recreational fisherman, but bugger the fishing grounds that are too hard for us to get to.
The money that you generate goes directly into protecting your own interests, and has very little to do with reducing the amount of fish that are taken from the oceans and sold to fish shops.
It may drive the price of fish up very slightly, and it certainly protects your handy fishing grounds, but it does virtually nothing to help the bigger picture.

Of course no one wants the harbour fished out, but everyone seems to be coming down hard on weisboy whereas I don't see anything wrong with what he's done. If he can catch 300 fish in a night , and there's no bag limit, then what's the problem so long as they're eaten by someone? It saves them from buying a fish in the shop, and saves the life of a fish somewhere else.

If there's a problem with fish stocks, then I doubt he'd be catching so many, and the authorities would probably be imposing a bag limit.

As far as I'm concerned, at least he's putting all the fuel that his boat is using to a good purpose by actually feeding some people, instead of using it purely for his own entertainment, which makes him less of a vandal than other fisherman.

So who are you going to deny the right to eat fish? The guy who lives a hundred miles from the coast and has no interest in fishing?

Who said anything about stopping people eating fish. Fish are a reniewable resource that has to be managed correctly to be sustainable.

As I said, the only way to validate your concerns are to stop eating fish yourself, and pursue it simply as a sport.

No I just fish in a responsible manner and don't take more than I need for a feed.

If you eat them yourself, then your just as criminal as any trawling company.

Who said trawlers or any commercial fisherman are criminals. I buy fish from the fishmarkets every week. Up untill recently the harvesting of fish has been undertaken using methods that were unsustainable and the seafood has been sold for less than its true worth. That is changing and the cost of fish is rising because the resourse costs more to extract and compliance costs for fishermen are higher.
Also a lot of aquaculture is comeing into play so we are farming seafood - again sustainable practices.


Unless you want to impose a quota of fish consumed per person, regardless of their interest in the sport of fishing, then we're all as guilty as each other of depleting fish stocks. In fact fishermen are probably more guilty than others, because they probably consume more than the average quota of fish. They're just more interested in keeping their own fishing grounds stocked up.

I do want to keep my fishing spots stocked with fish its called the east coast of Australia ( and any other ocean or river I happen to want to fish in).

I want this not just for myself but for the sake of my children and their children. John this is no different to the forest debate, just because you use wood doesn't make you a criminal likewise there is nothing wrong with commercial logging as long as its sustainable, you can't keep raping and pillaging the planets natural resources ..taking 300 fish in one night is pillaging no other word for it......I also think its a bloody big lie

Originally Posted by Bleedin Thumb

Who said anything about stopping people eating fish. Fish are a reniewable resource that has to be managed correctly to be sustainable.

Exactly. And the powers that be have determined that there’s no need to impose a bag limit.

Originally Posted by Bleedin Thumb

No I just fish in a responsible manner and don't take more than I need for a feed.

But you waste a lot of fuel with very little to show for it. At least weisboy is feeding a lot of people for the amount of fuel that he’s burning.
I think I read somewhere that for every joule of energy that’s produced in food, it takes ten times that amount of input energy, either in fossil fuels, electricity, transport etc. weisboy is doing us all a favour in reducing the amount of energy that would otherwise have been wasted by simply throwing his catch back, and forcing his benefactors to source their food elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Bleedin Thumb

Who said trawlers or any commercial fisherman are criminals.

It’s a bit hypocritical to say that trawling entire schools of fish, day after day is AOK, but to catch 300 fish, and actually kill and eat them deserves a reddie.

Originally Posted by Bleedin Thumb

Also a lot of aquaculture is comeing into play so we are farming seafood - again sustainable practices.

That’s all good. Perhaps you could make your use of fuel more sustainable, by actually producing some energy to offset the waste, by feeding people your catch instead of throwing it back in the ocean.

Originally Posted by Bleedin Thumb

I want this not just for myself but for the sake of my children and their children.

Of course. Just don’t fool yourself into believing that you’re doing it for the planet. It’s for you personally, and for your own children. Not for the bugger that lives a hundred miles from the ocean.

Originally Posted by Bleedin Thumb

John this is no different to the forest debate, just because you use wood doesn't make you a criminal likewise there is nothing wrong with commercial logging as long as its sustainable, you can't keep raping and pillaging the planets natural resources ..taking 300 fish in one night is pillaging no other word for it......I also think its a bloody big lie

I find it quite hypocritical to suggest that it’s OK to trawl the oceans, but not to take a measly 300 fish from your own fishing grounds. You’ve offered no proof at all that weisboys’ actions are unsustainable. If they were, then I’m sure the authorities would impose a bag limit. He’s not doing anything illegal, and if he’s to be believed, then half of his clubs fees goes in restocking with fingerlings, double the amount that he harvests.

Yet everyone seems to be treating him as if he’s clubbing seal pups to death.

Of course you’ll probably say that if every man and his dog went out and took 300 fish a night there’d be none left, and you’d probably be right. But the fact of the matter is that they don’t, and until they do there seems to be no reason for a bag limit that seems to reward the wasteful, and punish those that choose to put their fuel energy to good use above simply throwing it away.

AFAIK that would be more like pillaging. The big difference is that you’re doing it purely for amusement. “Lets put a barbed hook through some poor fish's jaw, drag him around for half an hour, hoist him out of the water, take a pic and give him a kiss to show that there’s no hard feelings, then throw him back. Lets just hope that he lives through all the trauma so we can do it to him again”. Sounds a bit sadistic to me, but then, I’m not a fish so I wouldn’t know how it feels.

Originally Posted by pawnhead

The big difference is that you’re doing it purely for amusement. “Lets put a barbed hook through some poor fish's jaw, drag him around for half an hour, hoist him out of the water, take a pic and give him a kiss to show that there’s no hard feelings, then throw him back. Lets just hope that he lives through all the trauma so we can do it to him again”. Sounds a bit sadistic to me, but then, I’m not a fish so I wouldn’t know how it feels.

When fishing you can't be naturally selective as the which fish takes your bait - by example I fish for food and do return some for both

1 if it is too small then let it grow - and it could be illegal size.

2 if it is a big fish it is most likely a breeding female hence it is a great resource alive so let it go. Take a pic first.

Medium sized flathead I will keep and eat with family; small and large fish I will return - no cruelty intended - I regard it as responsible fishing.

finaly someone that isnt against me.

the fish were cleaned and are in my freezer there were 42 all together and one was 1.09kg the next was 1.03kg and the third .85kg. no joke the biggest 2 were 45cm long. i returnd all 9 of the femails i caught.