Minimum Size Limits - an archaic system

F

FeedingFrenzy

New member
Hi All

As an ecologist and a fanatical angler (its what got me into this career!) I have started thinking about things in a very different light.  A good angler and fellow conservator Matthew Prophet proposed this system and as far as I know it is in operation on the Breede for dusky cob.  Basically our size limit system paves the way for anglers to remove the larger fish from the breeding pool.  Think about it: you catch a 3 kilo galjoen and take it home to braai.  You have just removed an experienced fish from the system - one that has survived countless trials and tribulations to reach this size and one that contributes to the success of the species as a whole - good genetics! Or even more so - a 15 kilo white steenbras (actually, killing a white steenbras that has not swallowed the hook is just criminal!) - a fish of that size is contributing to the survival of the species!  So in essence we should have a maximum size limit!  If I do take a galjoen for example it will be one that is just size!  Anything bigger goes back in - unless of course it got banged up on the rocks or in the case of a white steenbras - has swallowed the hook and is not reviving.  There is a strange paternal instinct to protect young animals that does not necessarily have a place in resource management.  Young ones should be subject to predation - thin out the numbers to ensure more resources for those that do make it!  I'm not advocating less rights for us anglers, I'm saying we need to manage our impact on our fish stocks.  Anglers do have the ability to wipe out fish - often the blame is placed on commercial and semi-commercial guys but the truth be told, its us recreational guys that have the biggest impact on certain species.  In False Bay we are all aware that trek netting was responsible for diminishing the white steenbras breeding population - but it doesn't make it right for us to also remove breeding fish.  Anyone out there that thinks this is fallacy need only look at photos of Hermanus in the heydays - old ballies with huge piles of fish - and I mean huge piles - caught from places like Nooiensbank below Gearing Point - you don't get anything much there anymore - when I was a laaitie I still caught wildeperd, dassies, hotties and a solitary johnbrown there - but not huge piles of fish - that included monstrous red steenbras.  So guys let's think about and do something about it.  I can imagine that this sounds like a whine (anybody got any cheese?) but it is a serious issue!  I hope we can have a lively discussion on this.
 
R

Reefman

Sealiner
FF good point thats been discussed many times before on Sealine.

I think most of the conservation wary anglers agree to the size limits being silly. In many countries there is a range of fish size (breeding size) that you're not allowed to take out... you may take smaller and larger, but in the active breeding stage of a fishes life, those are the ones that need to be protected. I know MCM is working in this direction already, but there is not enough data and research on which to base their decisions... not enough is known about certain species breeding habits.

So we look forward to the day when those limits are changed and more resource-wary limits imposed...
 
B

Bycatch

Senior Member
@FF+ - for when the fish are really on the bite. Your points are valid however I wish to make a few pointers if I may.

If we let Mother Nature take its course and we continue to attempt to rid the ocean of all that moves, the following might occur:

·       Fish that undergo sex reversal might do so at different ages & sizes to balance out the population. The size limit that was once female might now be male.

·       Survival instinct and Darwinism is stronger than we think. We cannot see what goes on under the sea. Populations will adapt. Where we mere mortals thought they congregated to spawn may no longer be the case. I bet if funds were available for continental shelf research along the eastern seaboard, we would find more Coelacanths!

·       Legislation pertaining to fish resource management might be ever changing as the resource adapts and changes except that we will be years (generations) behind in our attempt to prevent extinction of fish we cannot quantify such as land based animals.

·       Climate change is a reality and cyclical. Global warming is man induced. The changes here are happening all the time e.g. the jellyfish invasions in Japan, the monster squid along the Western seaboard of the US, etc.

·       ……and I suppose we could add many more assumptions.

 

I fully agree with the strong genetic base (big old fish) which must be preserved for future generations. Has it ever been shown that an old fish might be a “lazy” breeder? They are not normally good eating anyway so why would we want to keep them in the first place – egos maybe. This is a very interesting subject which our scientists consistently grapple with in an attempt to convince themselves and us that we are doing the right thing. Me, I’m not convinced.

I trust someone will build on this.

 

 
 
Marthin

Marthin

Sealiner
Slot systems is the way to go.

you can only take fish between this length and that length.

The questions is how do you get people to stick to it. Even our current system would work, less well but it could if everyone stuck to it.
 
H

Hylton

New member
@FF- The idea of slot limits would be great if we had the ability to enforce the rules in the first place but we have so many rules, for each different category of fisher or region that even th eenforcement agents don't know what they are doing. Also the issue of subsistance angling raises its head. "How do you fine a guy for catching 30 shad on spoon when he has nothing else?"

I am one for a bag limitation, regardles of size. Current regs allow an angler to take up to 26 fish home each day with no recourse. WTF? Limit it to 2/3 regardless of species and size and then it would be far easier to enforce.

Bycatch wrote:
@FF+ - for when the fish are really on the bite. Your points are valid however I wish to make a few pointers if I may.

If we let Mother Nature take its course and we continue to attempt to rid the ocean of all that moves, the following might occur:

·       Fish that undergo sex reversal might do so at different ages & sizes to balance out the population. The size limit that was once female might now be male.

·       Survival instinct and Darwinism is stronger than we think. We cannot see what goes on under the sea. Populations will adapt. Where we mere mortals thought they congregated to spawn may no longer be the case. I bet if funds were available for continental shelf research along the eastern seaboard, we would find more Coelacanths!

·       Legislation pertaining to fish resource management might be ever changing as the resource adapts and changes except that we will be years (generations) behind in our attempt to prevent extinction of fish we cannot quantify such as land based animals.

·       Climate change is a reality and cyclical. Global warming is man induced. The changes here are happening all the time e.g. the jellyfish invasions in Japan, the monster squid along the Western seaboard of the US, etc.

·       ……and I suppose we could add many more assumptions.

 

I fully agree with the strong genetic base (big old fish) which must be preserved for future generations. Has it ever been shown that an old fish might be a “lazy” breeder? They are not normally good eating anyway so why would we want to keep them in the first place – egos maybe. This is a very interesting subject which our scientists consistently grapple with in an attempt to convince themselves and us that we are doing the right thing. Me, I’m not convinced.

I trust someone will build on this.

 

 
Click to expand...
@ Bycatch- As far as fish changing sex and thus breeding size. Slinger in Natal have shown a 30% reduction in average catch size due to just that. Males are dominant and removed the largest female changes and then is the next to be removed. As such the population average size is reduced until you reach a point when all the fish are below the legal capture size. Economic extinction!

Spawning aggregations - Why do you think the 74 went onto the endangered list and had to be protected. Everyone knew where they spawned and caught them in these areas. They don't adapt well enough to avoid the technology we develop to find them or the money spent to spot them.

Legislation and management- relies on accurate data and suitable enforcement. The number of crooked anglers (commercial and recreational) vs the number who willingly give accurate information means the biologists can not make properly informed decisions.

Anyway like I said. Limit an angler to 2/3 fish per day and it becomes much easier to enforce, but make the results of non compliance enough to prevent any possible hope that they will do it again! Let the comments:rainedown on me!
 
B

Bycatch

Senior Member
How about submersible research with our new permit fee moneis. Done on popular reefs it would give scientists greater insight into the unknown, something which catch returns and stats are not able to do.

We are catching baby coppers & 74's (I mean tiny) with yozuris intended for livebait. Have the nurseries moved - Hylton?

Things are changing, we will see it in our lifetimes yet. Perhaps not for the better of us and the fish?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top