Conservation Status...a double standard?

[Samrenny]

Now not to sound like I'm having abit of a whinge here...well I probably am :whistle: but having recently stocked some natives into the dam on the family property I have been doing alot of reading up on our native species. Now first of all I'll say it straight up: I am 100% catch and release when it comes to our native freshwater species, for me seeing them swim away after a good fight and a quick snap is all part of the enjoyment for me. So when I see someone kill a large native fish, murray cod for example, it makes me pretty angry inside. More to the point, to my knowledge from what I have been able to find, Murray cod are listed a "Vulnerable".

And yet legally a person is entitled to take up to 2 per day Even more surprising is that you are allowed to take up to 1 endangered mary river cod upstream of a few impoundments :pinch:

Now just imagine if you shot a land-dwelling endangered species, a bilby for example. The authorities/greenies would have you hung, drawn and quatered! You can't even kill a bloody kangaroo without having a proper licence to do so, and there are millions upon tens of millions of the things all over the country, more so than before European settlement even!

Sorry to rant, but to me it just seems like an ENORMOUS double standard, I just can't fathom the logic behind it. Maybe its just a case of "out of sight out of mind", or maybe they're just not all furry and cuddly enough for the greenies who chuck up a stink over a dead roo. Or perhaps its just peoples attitudes. The look of disgust I get from people on a regular basis when I show them a photo of a fish I caught and tell them I released it always surprises me; "You can't put it back!, you have to keep it!"... but when you show that same person a photo of a feral dog or pig that has been culled, it is a different look of disgust you get :dry:

Anyway, just some food for thought while I'm stuck at work dreaming of fishing :whistle: :side:

[aussie123]

There is nothing wrong with people keeping a feed of fish if they are working within the law.

As for cod,they are easily bred in hatcheries by the millions every year for restocking and many rivers and streams appear to be overstocked with so many small and skinny cod these days.

MRC are artificially stocked into the impoundments hence people being allowed to keep one legal sized fish.

They are fully protected in their natural catchment.

If you want to jump up and down about protecting our so called native fish,maybe have a whinge to fisheries for releasing fish into the waterways outside of their natural range, eg: Mary River Cod

You should also remember C&R kills fish too which are then a totally wasted resource.

[Samrenny]

My intention of the post wasn't an issue of legalities with bag limits, more so the fact you can kill "apparently" vulnerable fish species, but can't kill a native land animal like a roo for recreation or food without a licence to do so, when there is no issue of conservation whatsoever.

I catch and release because I like knowing that I can go back to that same area and (maybe) catch that fish again one day, let it grow even bigger. I fish for the sport not the feed, so the more hits im getting the better, thats just the way i see things anyway. I understand and accept that people do it for the feed.

Edit: As for C&R killing fish, I take alot of care to ensure they swim away in a healthy condition, rubberised nets, wetting hands before handling and "breathing" the fish before I let it swim off etc. I agree its a different story when they just get chucked up on the river bank in the dirt or gut hooked and things like that

[samsteele115]

Mate I'm 90% with you, but what happens if you go to release a nice big cod and she goes belly up? Sometimes it happens even if you use perfect handling techniques. At least if it is within the law to keep one you can take it home and it is not wasted instead of just leaving it there. I would even be inclined to take one if I don't think it would survive after the fight purely because I don't want to waste such a beautiful fish. After all it was me who put it in that condition, so I should deal with the consequences.

I try and release all creek bass I catch but a while ago I had one go belly up and didn't think it would survive. Because it was over 30cm and has a bag limit of 2, I was able to take it home for dinner and it wasn't just left on the bank for the crows.

So I think it's important to have those size and bag limits in place. As for all other fish, I have now come to the personal conclusion that there is nothing wrong with keeping a feed if it is within the law after being mainly a C&R fisherman for a while.

I can understand your frustration though man

[Samrenny]

Yeah that's a different story, I'm 100% with you on taking it if it goes belly up, I guess that answers my questions as to bag limits for them! I agree with keeping a feed when it comes to salt fish, they seem to breed quite alot easier than alot of the fresh species...there's no shortage of school fish like trevally and mackerel for example, doesn't seem to be any issue of breeding there!

[elops]

There is nothing wrong with people keeping a feed of fish if they are working within the law.

As for cod,they are easily bred in hatcheries by the millions every year for restocking and many rivers and streams appear to be overstocked with so many small and skinny cod these days.

MRC are artificially stocked into the impoundments hence people being allowed to keep one legal sized fish.

They are fully protected in their natural catchment.

If you want to jump up and down about protecting our so called native fish,maybe have a whinge to fisheries for releasing fish into the waterways outside of their natural range, eg: Mary River Cod

You should also remember C&R kills fish too which are then a totally wasted resource.

Nothing wrong with keeping a feed of freshwater fish if you are working within law Lance. Would be good to see more people keeping fish stocked into the east coast impoundments they are stocked as "Put and Take" NOT to build up a massive population of often non indigenous native fish to entrain in such numbers that they overpopulate sections of streams.

Yes there are streams that could be described as overstocked with small skinny Murray Cod. BUT there is no possible way that the other 3 species of Maccullochella could be considered overstocked.

MRC are stocked into impoundments to allow people to target and keep one legal sized fish, this is to let people fish for them while allowing the natural and stocked fish population in the Mary catchment to recover and the founder populations stocked into the other SEQ catchments to become established.

They are fully protected EVERYWHERE except upstream of the listed impoundments.

While there are numerous arguments and valid reasons to jump up and down about it being legal to stock some species outside of their natural range this is not the case with MRC. They have been stocked in the other catchments in SEQ as founder populations to replace the original Maccullochella species which to put in the context of this thread has the conservation status of Extinct.

[elops]

To go back to the original question in the title and asked by you Sam Conservation Status is not really a double standard. It is a criteria of legislating fisheries management and regulations among many other things. Many fish with the Status of Vulnerable are regulated with size/possession limits, closed seasons etc. Status is also reviewed as is legislation but the wheels of bureaucracy (and research) turn slowly which is reflected in the dichotomy of some listings and regulations. A case in point is Silver Perch now listed as Critically Endangered. In NSW Silver Perch may only be taken in listed impoundments Protected everywhere else. This will most likely be the same in QLD when the Freshwater Regulation Review is completed. In my lifetime Silver Perch have gone from being common in their natural range with massive schools of fish undertaking annual spawning migrations to being rare and now Critically Endangered. Link to Listing

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=76155

Mary River Cod on the other hand have gone from being Critically Endangered with a few small remnant populations in the Mary catchment to Endangered as a result of the Recovery Plan and 30 odd years of work by those involved. I hope in my lifetime to see them downgraded to Vulnerable with changes to the legislation to reflect this. The only Conservation Status that can not be changed is Extinct.

[Samrenny]

Very informative reply, thanks for the info! I also hope to see the same, thats why I found it odd and a bit frustrating to see they were allowed to be taken at all. Good to hear the MRC are on the rise though, hopefully the Silvers will follow. Until recently I had no idea silvers were in danger at all, I'm pretty sure I caught a few as a kid in QLD rivers in the early 2000's (didn't take too much notice at the time), and as recently as Easter this year my little cousin caught one also. Lets just hope we never have to see that terminal status put on any our natives!

[Samrenny]

On a side note, what exactly were the now extinct species of Maccullochella you speak of? The species I am aware of are the Murray, Trout, Mary River, and another one which I can't quite remember...were there others?

[Terry H]

Samrenny, there was a Brisbane River Cod - now thought to be extinct. As such, the stocking of Mary River Cod to the larger Brisbane River catchment; inclusive of Stanley River; is in my eyes somewhat of a restoration to the natural species diversification that existed in the Brisbane River.

There is also an Eastern River Cod that resides in the Clarence and Richmond Rivers in NSW.

The BRC was believed to be somewhere in between an ERC and a MaryRC.

Lance/Steve the only locations I"m aware of that Mary River Cod have been stocked that didn't previously have a Maccullochella species is Maroon, Hinze and NPD. Unless I've missed some photos, I have not seen any captures from either systems. Where are we seeing an overstocking with small skinny Mary's?

[Samrenny]

Thanks Terry, I hadn't heard of that before. And yep Eastern River cod was the one I was after!

I'm with you on that one though, if it's a very similar species found relatively close by, its not like establishing a population in the Brisbane can eliminate the original if its already extinct.

[elops]

Could type forever on speciation/evolution of Maccullochella but might be boring so will keep it short.

M. peelii Murray Cod

M. maquariensis Trout Cod

M. ikei Eastern Cod

M. mariensis Mary River Cod

And once there was a Maccullochella sp. in every major catchment between the Clarence and the Mary with the exception of the Tweed, Mooloolah, Maroochy and Noosa.

M. ikei stocked into the Richmond as the endemic species was believed to be extinct.

M. mariensis stocked into the Nerang, Coomera, Logan Albert, Brisbane and Pine catchments as the endemic Maccullochella sp. was extinct. Also stocked in every impoundment in these catchments and recently added to the EMD Management Plan and Caboolture River Management Plan but yet to be stocked.

[rayke1938]

Where are we seeing an overstocking with small skinny Mary's?

It is the Murrays in the Dumaresq where the problem is. It is being monitored by both Qld and NSW fisheries in conjunction with the Glen Lyon stocking group.

Cheers

Ray

[benno573]

I'm not overly knowledgable on the specifics of what used to be stocked where and what is currently being stocked. That's why an Elops was invented.

However...

It is perfectly legal to kill some species of kangaroo in Aust. The LEGAL regulation you speak of is more around the apparatus generally required to do so and a restriction on certain areas, i.e national parks, state forests, my neighbours place (although with the current gov in qld who knows where that may go) greenies can go jump if you are acting within the rules. I don't think I've ever seen a greeny kick up about the killing of a listed feral animal, unless it is done using a non-humane method, which especially when it comes to pigs appears to be a problem for some in the world. A .243 to the back of the head seems to do the trick nicely, don't see the attraction in other methods personally.

The same principles loosely apply to fish hunting, often referred to as fishing amongst a learned few. There are restrictions on apparatus (no. of lines, use of dynamite etc) and restrictions on certain areas, in both fresh and salt. Obviously the current issues with stocking stem from a lack of regulation in the past, that's how we got to this point, now onto the fixing bit. With proper management I am hopeful things will improve in the future - it definitely seems to be heading in the right direction from what those that know stuff are saying. Allowing someone to take a fish stocked solely for a catch and take kind of arrangement (same with bass) is no issue whatsoever for me. People deliberately targetting them in their protected range is a different matter and should be punishable with a mild case of death, failing that a substantial financial disincentive to do such things again, fishing ban for life or loss of left testicle. Or all of the above.

I appreciate the fact that others are concerned about such issues though, thank you for the post, interesting read for my train ride home today.

Cheers,

Benno

[Samrenny]

Really? I haven't ever heard of this before...if not with a gun (the most humane method you would think) what method are you legally allowed to use to take said legal species? I was always under the impression killing native animals was forbidden bar in survival circumstances

I agree whole heartedly with you on .243 to the head being the best way, I enjoy hunting feral species, but no matter what the animal I want to dispatch of it quickly and humanely. As for the greenies jumping up and down, you'd be surprised...I do believe a certain former minister for the environment's solution to the wild dog problem was castrating the dogs and releasing them back into the wild :silly: jokes aside, no generally most with half a brain dont jump up and down, but there seems to be a lack of understanding among some of the more sheltered city-slicking folk who like to label all hunters as cruel, violent killers. Reactions from these people are the ones I speak of...The same type who believe 1080 is a more humane method than a bullet...I know for sure which one I would rather NOT have!

Back to the fishing side of things, again, I fully agree. I never quite thought of impoundments as being areas stocked for the purpose of the table, with that logic I suppose it is much better as it is not having an impact on breeding populations. All the same, if I was ever fortunate enough to catch a MRC, impoundment or not I couldn't take such a rare fish!

No worries, was something I had been pondering for a while and thought it'd make for an interesting discussion on here! With the vast amount of knowledge held amongst alot of the members its proved to be quite educational (looking at you elops )

[aussie123]

Terry I was referring to some areas overstocked with Murray Cod and not MRC.

It would be back in the 80's that I can remember the first Put and Take native fish fishery and that was Lake Mulwala after word got out about the massive cod fishery in there.

Over a very short few years the cod population was decimated and the majority of the large breeding fish were taken out of the system.

Restocking began and it was pushed to the public as a Put and Take impoundment where you could go and target cod and remove them from the lake for eating.

They poured hundreds of thousands of cod into it and the anglers flocked to the lake every year which also helped to relieve pressure from the river systems above and below the lake.

Over time Fisheries changed the bag limits to reflect the stocked fish in these lakes by allowing say 10 fish from a particular lake but only 2 fish from the rivers.

The model worked well for many years until someone in their wisdom decided to abolish fishing licenses and most of the restocking ended and the majority of Fisheries Officers were laid off.

Then the poachers moved in and shipped tons of cod to the Melbourne markets every week and the lake was once again decimated in a very short time.

Now they have severe bag and size limits and closed seasons which is a shame because the old Put and Take system was working really well until funding and policing stopped.

A similar model is working really well here in QLD but again it is only because anglers pay a license (sips) to fish the impoundments covered by this arrangement and that money goes to restocking these SIPS lakes.

The reality is the majority of our backed up waterways are stocked so people can take some of the fish home that they catch.

A good offshoot from this restocking is when the lakes overflow the fish move downstream over the dam walls and restock the rivers and many become self sustaining breeding populations.

Places like the Brisbane and Pine Rivers are not good fisheries because of some wild Bass breeding populations, they are good fisheries because of the impoundment stocked fish that head over the dam walls every time there is a flood and replenish the fish stocks in the lower sections below these dams.

I don't mind seeing people take fish home to eat as that is what they are put in there for.

C&R is fantastic too and it has also played a large part in why we have some incredible fisheries around these days but many people get the same enjoyment and satisfaction from their fishing by catching a fish and taking it home and eating it.

No one is right or wrong here if they are doing it within the law.

[fenelious]

Do what you would like everyone else to do that fishes in the waterway I say.

Do YOU want every person that fishes the South Pine, the Brisbane, the Albert, the Tweed, the Clarence, the Macleay etc. to kill 2 Bass every day they fish there?

Do YOU want every person that fishes the mouth of the Pine to kill 5 Flathead every day they fish there?

Do you want every person that fishes the Severn River to kill 2 Cod and 10(!) Golden Perch every day they fish there?

That's everyone's lawful right, but YOU hope that they don't, so maybe you shouldn't do it yourself.

Maybe we should consider how many people are fishing our waterway and use common sense and a conservationist view to guide us, instead of just the law?

For the record I eat 2 Bass every time I catch them at North Pine Dam, and I've got nothing against taking your bag limit from stocked impoundments, although I use discretion if I think the fish are scarce, such as with Mary Cod, I would not take even though I can. And I do eat the odd 1 Flathead on occasion too.

The law doesn't always provide to us the most appropriate behavior in all situations. I did a solo 3 day kayak and camp down an unstocked coastal Bass river a while ago. One day after catching and releasing many Bass I decided I would kill and eat 1 Bass to supplement my 'hard rations'. A 30+cm fish was more meat than I wanted to cook and eat for my meal, so I waited until I got a 27cm Bass which I ate on my own. Illegal, but if I'm going to kill 1 fish why should I have to kill a big fish? It makes more sense and is more sustainable to kill a smaller one. The law is a good guide, but it's not always the best guide.

And Benno, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to kill any species of Roos by any means in any location unless you have a permit. My parents own a 3000 acre beef cattle property in NSW with thousands of Eastern Grey Roos (the common ones), and regardless of whether it's on private land or in the state forest you are required by law to acquire a number of permit 'tags' to cull a set number of Roos, whether you are a property owner or a professional shooter or a recreational shooter wanting a permit to shoot Roos in state forest.

As you can imagine most graziers ignore this law and cull Roos at will, because they're in plague proportions particularly on grazing land. And the authorities turn a blind eye because on the most part they aren't idiots either.

If you have evidence / a reference re being allowed to kill Roos without a permit, let us know I'd be very interested.

-Steve.

[ellicat]

Bag Limits are actually "In Possession Limits". i.e. you CANNOT legally take the bag limit each time you fish if that take would make your total fish in possession more than the limit. In possession means fish with you, in your home freezer, in your van, wherever.

It is NOT LEGAL to take undersize fish for a very good reason - Size limits are usually set to allow 1 or 2 spawns before capture, thus helping the fishery to be sustainable. Taking an undersize fish removes the potential spawn of hundreds/thousands of fish. :pinch:

In Qld I think you only need 1 licence to kill roos - a drivers' licence :silly:

Pretty sure you only need a weapons licence in Qld to shoot roos.

Sometimes we need the law to protect us against what we don't know and wrong assumptions.

[fenelious]

Bag Limits are actually "In Possession Limits". i.e. you CANNOT legally take the bag limit each time you fish if that take would make your total fish in possession more than the limit. In possession means fish with you, in your home freezer, in your van, wherever.

It is NOT LEGAL to take undersize fish for a very good reason - Size limits are usually set to allow 1 or 2 spawns before capture, thus helping the fishery to be sustainable. Taking an undersize fish removes the potential spawn of hundreds/thousands of fish. :pinch:

In Qld I think you only need 1 licence to kill roos - a drivers' licence :silly:

Pretty sure you only need a weapons licence in Qld to shoot roos.

Sometimes we need the law to protect us against what we don't know and wrong assumptions.

Re para 1: I'm a little confused - (using Bass as an example) Isn't it true that I can take 2 fish home, eat them, and go back every single day and take and eat 2 more each day? If I get what you're saying - I can't take 2 each day to make a large stock pile in my freezer because that would put me over the possession limit, yes? BUT, if I have 4 people in my family then WE could have 8 fish in our fridge/freezer at any one time, right?

Either way my point was that if everyone that fished took what they were legally allowed to then in many cases there wouldn't be too many fish left, so I don't agree necessarily that we should encourage everyone to take within the legal limits. (put and take stocked impoundments aside)

Re para 2: You haven't convinced me, I'm not getting your point - If I am going to kill 1 fish (so 1 and 1 only fish is definitely going to die), then why is the 27cm fish more valuable for spawning than the 30+cm fish? Unless I'm completely and embarrassingly misinformed, I'm pretty sure the big fish still spawn, and I thought more prolifically than the smaller ones. I get that if I kill an undersized fish then he/she may have never had the opportunity to spawn at all. But as I said 1 fish is going to die, preventing it from ever spawning again regardless of how many times it may or may not have already, so why are the potential offspring from the one that hasn't spawned yet better than the potential offspring from the ones that has already spawned a few times? You say it as if killing the small fish removes potential spawning of heaps of fish, but killing the larger fish doesn't do the same :S

Re para 3: Incorrect. Kangaroos like all Macropods in Aust are a protected species. In Queensland if you are shooting roos you need a Qld Firearms Licence AND one of these three types of licence:

(From the Kangaroo Shooting Code compliance, Queensland State Regulatory Framework):

2.2.2.2 Licence conditions

"There are three types of shooter's licence issued in Queensland. The Commercial Wildlife Harvesting Licence for commercial shooters, Damage Mitigation Permits issued to landholders and the Recreational Wildlife Harvesting Licence."

You need to jump through some hoops to get one of these, and when you do, it permits you to kill a certain number of roos in a certain location/s. As I said in my previous post, it involves tags/tagging.

The rules in NSW are similar though not exactly the same.

I only thought I knew what I was talking about re this. Turns out after doing some research, I did.

Re para 4: Before one presents as an expert by outwardly denying another persons claimed knowledge, one should ensure that they are indeed the expert they claim to be... or take the time (and respect) to research the topic and provide some evidence/references. :pinch:

-Steve.

[ellicat]

Not sure if I should just say "Yeah" and move on, or spend some time on guiding you. What do you reckon ? Is it worth my effort or will you just defiantly oppose ?

[benno573]

I'd go with yeah and move on...

Appears things have changed since last I hunted roos. Happy to accept my initial thoughts were incorrect. Too many tasty tasty feral animals now, not interested in roos these days so doesn't concern me in the slightest.

Your points re taking undersized fish... I'm just going to shake my head, shoulder arms and let that one go straight through to the keeper.