Treknetters, False Bay, Muizenberg

[jb2]

[color=#006600]maroodt[/color] wrote:

@jb2 "Be honest enough to ackowlege that you don't like the trekkers because you perceive them to be catching fish that you want to catch." mate you got it all wrong making such a petty statement, my reason for not liking these guys is simple when i get told to get the fvck off their beach because myself and fellow anglers are in the way and if we didn't comply we would be made to comply well lets just say i will not be intimidated in any way what so ever granted this incident happened a couple of years ago, yes i understand these guys do this to earn a living and i'm not the type of person that would take the bread out of anyones mouth and yes recreationals (uneducated ones) do a helluva lot more damage in terms of littering ,bag limits, etc but at least they have respect for their fellow anglers and most of these guys clean up their acts after a nice little chat

Hi Maroodt.

The behaviour that you describe is unacceptable even f it did happen years agoBut that wasn't the concern that was being discussed. We were talking about the landing of a ray and the perception of trekking.

You had referred to the trekkers as "f..kers" based on the picture that had been posted.

I concede that there is animosity.

 

[jb2]

[color=#006600]calamari[/color] wrote:

:fishnthis is an interesting topic, which i also think has gone a bit "off the point", everyone is blaming trekkers, (which is fair!) for the lousy fishing in false bay,,but, as an observation, has anyone considered the pollution that pour's into false bay? this has been discussed before on sealine,so it's not a new theme,,,i'm not a (rocket) scientist, but anyone with a bit of thought to our enviroment will see the discharge of effluent from the sewage works,the rivers witch bring all sorts,from the farm/wine farm effuent's, which are mostly nitrites,not nitrates,,,,also all the people that wash?/(crap) in the river's, this also get's into the bay.along with a 100000,000 plastic bags! factories like aeci in s/west have now closed,(was a major polluter of the ocean),but i'm sure other industries have added there 'quota' to the sea!

any comments,,,, so far?

we as angler's are not the problem as far as depleting fish stocks are concerned,i am not a 'kak' angler,i also return most fish i catch,,,i have returned 4 in the last 3months,i've only had 6 fish out the water tho'.a few bait fish too,, but no more than 20 in total,mostly  maasbanker.so where am i the big problem as far as 'recreational fishing is concerned??

the press people will always look for a good story,i.e' blame the fisherman,trekker's or whatever,,,they seem to not 'research' information,,so do me a favour and do a bit of research' youselves, this is also a worldwide problem,so don't think we are immune to pollution! the snag is that no-one in government will admit to it!

tite lines,,,,,,, when it happen's!

Hi Calamari

The pollution issue is huge and MCM are worried about it. The problem comes in where fertilizers etc are released into river systems. Many of our inshore species like white and cape stump and leervis and steenbras rely on the estuaries for part of their lifecycle.

If you clog the estuary with weed growth caused by fertilizers then water does not flow effectively and the estuary is no longer an effective breeding ground.


 

 

[jb2]

[color=#006600]Loomisx5[/color] wrote:

[color=#006600]tuna[/color] wrote:

Jb2 are you an normal anglers or are you someone doing rsearc, working for MCM or something like that?

Or the one that issues the permits? :lol:1    Is there anybody that can give us the actual impact on nature that treknetting causes.

Hi

Anyone who speaks in favour of commercial fishers must be the devil himself:temp:

I am a fisheries consultant.

There has been a lot of research into trekking particularly in False Bay. Previously recreationals had far more imaginative arguments against trekking. It was said that it dmaged the sea floor. This was refuted in an in depth study.

Then there was a whole story about the linefish mortality and this was shown not to be a big deal.

Then there was the suggestion that they were linked to great white sharks attacks.

They were also suspected to be reposnsible for Naas Botha's inability to pass the ball wide or at all. They turn the milk sour. They hide the car keys when you are already late for work.

Ask Walt for the info on the ecosystem effects and the history of the resistance to trekking.

I think he has a copy somewere

 

 

[strikerpro]

imported post

 

[maroodt]

"Too my surprise the FVKKERS put a rope thru the gills and drag it all the way up to a waiting bakkie" this incident and photos reported on ctf at least 1.5 m across @jb2 bro read the statement take note of the quotation marks and the source

 

[jb2]

[color=#006600]maroodt[/color] wrote:

"Too my

surprise the FVKKERS put a rope thru the gills and drag it all the way up to a waiting bakkie" this incident and photos reported on ctf at least 1.5 m across @jb2 bro read the statement take note of the quotation marks and the source

Hi Maroodt

Sorry I did not make myself clear. You had said that your dislike of thr trekkers did not come from the killing of the ray but from an earlier incident. r

I was just trying t  understand what the concern was. You mentioned an earlie incident where you had been treated completely rudely.

I was aware of the statement and the source.

 

[jb2]

[color=#006600]strikerpro[/color] wrote:

Either way anyone slices the cake doesn't change the facts. The yellowtail they do catch in the treknets are always in ROE and that cannot be good for any specie. The yellowtail only come close enough into the bay when they are spawning and then are very reluctant to take lures.

The treknetters themselves are not the problem - they are doing what they are allowed to do. DEAT's MCM should clean up their act and ensure that the quotas they hand out are sustainable and then ensure that they monitor compliance properly, which they are not doing. Out in the deep they (MCM) are hardly doing a thing to monitor compliance also in the harbours where the commercials offload their fish the monitoring is way to little.

AS a further example...

A specie like white steenbras is known to only start spawning at +-65cm (50% of them do) although earlier studies showed 40cm this was found to be incorrect in later studies. Now for a fish critically overfished why is the minimum size 60cm when it is likely that less than 25% of steenbras this size would have spawned. MCM should clean up their act.

Treknetting studies were done 10+ years ago - the situation then is not what it is today. Current studies are based on past studies, making current assessments inaccurate in some circumstances. The treknetters have evolved into going out further with more technologically advanced nets (lighter) etc.

Hi

The yellowtail in roe story is quite a popular one and this is also not a serious concern.

This also works on an emotional level.

The revision of minimum size limits does not mean size limits at the time are wrong. It is more a question of how conservative the management is. If you would like then they could close the white steenbras to anglers as well!

It is tempting to want to discredit the science. Unfortunately the nets and boats are all the same. (There is even a provision governing how much monofilament can be used in nets.)

The studies remain as relevant today as they were a few years ago. (keep in mind much of the work looks at constants such as hanging mesh size that would be as relevant today as 300 years ago!)

 

[strikerpro]

imported post

 

[bassboy]

Sorry guys, this is a little bit off the current topic, but I feel still relevant. We have had numerous incidents of freshwater netting here in natal (particularly at Inanda dam), and the SAPS, KZN wildlife etc etc have got involved, people have been shot at on a weekly basis with AK'S etc. The SAPS has tracked down the sale of the fish, wharehousing, seized boats, and to the best of my knowledge up to date close to 3km's of net, (bear in mind this is 1 dam, 24km's long!), clearly this is not subsistence fishing anymore........ however, my question is this and it is @ fb2, has government, to the best of your knowledge, instituted a sustainable netting policy/freshwater management policy at all, or has there been any talk of doing so? I know that this is not a saltwater question, but I think it is a similar thing, asI am getting tired of being shot at, and wondered if it was time that we started shooting back?:uzi::gas:and no, this is not bulls$£t, the execise is called operation Blackwater, and it is ongoing. It is rather disconcerting when you have to consider going armed when you go bass fishing from a boat, but even more so because I know if I did go armed there would be problems, because I was trained to shoot straight......... there have been no fatalities so far, but the netters were quite happy to open fire on the police!

 

[Patrick]

[color=#006600]jb2[/color] wrote

The yellowtail in roe story is quite a popular one and this is also not a serious concern.

This also works on an emotional level.



Hi JB, why are fish being trekked with roe not a serious concern, and on an emotional level? 

I would say the loss of new fish to continue the cycle is a definite concern and very much basic science that fish need to spawn to repeat the cycle. No emotions deciding people's concern with that .     

I'm interested to know if there other known areas outside of false bay that these fish also go to spawn? We as boat anglers dont see them in other areas in large concentrations as we do in false bay (excluding struisbaai), so it seems like this is their main area for spawning and it is with good measure by nature that fish arent easily caught by anglers during that period.

Saying what we do about the amount of tail the trekkers pull, i'm sure a boat load of us recreationals would happily take out the same amount as the trekkers if these fish were on the feed, in roe or not.  I doubt there are many boat anglers that arent fishing for tail right now in this roe period, me included. So, we are part of this too.

My gripe with trekkers is actually just the indiscriminant method of the nets used, and that at the end of the day it is still just 1 or 2 person's business to make money. The hype in protecting the netters is always that its a heritage, its community based etc. Its a money making venture owned by an individual, thats all, and it should have the same rational laws that any other business venture has.  If its damaging threatend species like the steenbras, then the way in which they get their stock to make profit must be changed by law. If i'm a 7/11 shop owner, i dont get to set up a shop in the middle of the N2 just because its the busiest road and can make me the most profit in the fastest time. 

 

[Nightfox]

hi guys i find this topic very interesting to say the least. i think that we all must acknowledge that whatever emotional or personal issues regarding trek-netting we might have, is that one fact stands out above all is that trek-netting is wrong and not sustainable.

whatever scientific research that's been done on the subject counts for nothing because there is simply not a viable stock to target anymore. i deduct that conclusion not on scientific research but by casual observation and hearing from all the anglers targeting false bay speaking with one voice asking "where are the fish??"

one such casual observation is in a book "dive south africa" which notes that in the 1930's there's been a trek on hout bay beach where a school of cob totalling 2000 with an average weight of 20kg was trekked in a single day! i do not know of schools of that magnitude frequent our cape waters anymore and if so please enlighten me with there whereabouts!? where i grew up in the eastern cape iv been lucky enough to witness a school of that proportions myself and I'm not 79 years old I'm 30 - on the kowie river bridge looking down one moonlit night with my dad from shore to shore as far as the eye could see, only cob!

although i acknowledge that trek-netting is not the main contributing factor to the decrease of our inshore fish stocks, it is a factor, one that must be stopped not only for the sake of joe public hoping to catch something or our children someday, but for trek-netters themselves because how are they going to earn a living when there's nothing to trek anymore?

I know its easy for me to say it must be stopped because whats the alternative for these guys who got families to feed, well i don't know because nor the mcm or the trek-netters seem to be thinking of alternatives. first they must realise that what they're doing is wrong and not sustainable and not forget that for every problem there is a solution

 

[jb2]

[color=#006600]strikerpro[/color] wrote:

Although i'm sure JB's post is well intended and a honest reflection of the 'reality' how you understand it....you clearly working on your misguided version of logic and the reality is that you are misguided by the little bit that you do know. I sincerely suggest that if you truly have an interest in sustainable fishing and want to comment on such a topic that you read more scientific evidence and do proper research. You seem to be an inexperienced angler and an inexperienced researcher, if i may dare to say so. Sorry buts it's clearly evident from you postings. I'm an ex ORI researcher, oops could put someone unto my trail, knowing enough about these subjects to take you on but i don't feel it neccesary to enlighten you when you clearly have a lot of ground to cover, it may take more postings than i'm willing to dedicate. p.s. you comments on white steenbras i agree with that was exactly what i was saying...these stocks cannot be preserved even at minimum of 65cm or 70cm size. restrictions mean little though when it cannot or is not enforced either.

Hi Strikerpro

I have tried to familiarise myself with everything written on the topic of False Bay's netfishing.

The studies are  largely the work of Bennet and Lamberth and I am not aware of any work that departs from what they have found.

It is a bit of a low blow to say I don't agree with you but I don't feel like explaing why.

 

 

[jb2]

[color=#006600]Nightfox[/color] wrote:

hi guys i find this topic very interesting to say the least. i think that we all must acknowledge that whatever emotional or personal issues regarding trek-netting we might have, is that one fact stands out above all is that trek-netting is wrong and not sustainable.

Not really we were talking about how there are lots of studies to show the opposite is the case

whatever scientific research that's been done on the subject counts for nothing because there is simply not a viable stock to target anymore. i deduct that conclusion not on scientific research but by casual observation and hearing from all the anglers targeting false bay speaking with one voice asking "where are the fish??"

The concerns surrounding linefish are important and go beyond anecdotal evidence.

one such casual observation is in a book "dive south africa" which notes that in the 1930's there's been a trek on hout bay beach where a school of cob totalling 2000 with an average weight of 20kg was trekked in a single day! i do not know of schools of that magnitude frequent our cape waters anymore and if so please enlighten me with there whereabouts!? where i grew up in the eastern cape iv been lucky enough to witness a school of that proportions myself and I'm not 79 years old I'm 30 - on the kowie river bridge looking down one moonlit night with my dad from shore to shore as far as the eye could see, only cob!

although i acknowledge that trek-netting is not the main contributing factor to the decrease of our inshore fish stocks, it is a factor, one that must be stopped not only for the sake of joe public hoping to catch something or our children someday, but for trek-netters themselves because how are they going to earn a living when there's nothing to trek anymore?

If you were a doctor and applied this reasoning then you would say that a patient that is ill should be euthanased rather than look at other measures.

I know its easy for me to say it must be stopped because whats the alternative for these guys who got families to feed, well i don't know because nor the mcm or the trek-netters seem to be thinking of alternatives. first they must realise that what they're doing is wrong and not sustainable and not forget that for every problem there is a solution

If there is a viable fisher, which there is then why do you want to stop people.

You are missing the main point and that is that harders make up mst of the catch!

 

[strikerpro]

imported post

 

[strikerpro]

imported post

 

[jb2]

[color=#006600]strikerpro[/color] wrote:

quote JB "It is a bit of a low blow to say I don't agree with you but I don't feel like explaing why."

Sorry my intentions was not to give a low blow it's just so obvious that trekking of yellowtail and cob for example is simply not sustainable. I'll continue the debate if needed.

You don't say why Bennet and Lamberth are wrong.

What always surprises me is that so many comments on Sealine and everywhere else i.e. a commonly held opinion is that if a quota was issued and an investment made by quota holders and the livelihood of people influenced is that they (DEATs MCM) cannot or shouldn't stop the quota holders enabling them of continuing unabated. What guarantee did government provide by issuing a quota? Did they garuantee that there would be fish? Did they guarauntee that it is sustainable? Should they as a minimum then not say that this is an undesirable practice and unsustainable but due to the following factors we are unable to stop issuing these licences?

Have you not been amazed at the reduction of effort that MCM has achieved in the linefishery. The current effort is a fraction of what it ws. This is because MCM has been so firm

The question is, is it sustainable? No it is not sustainable to continue treknetting yellowtail in false bay.

The decisions surrounding yellowtail consider a number of factors. The restrictions on effort, the susceptibility to capture etc. (I am not sure why yu disagree with Lamberth, Attwood, Wilke and the rest who have a good handle on the stock.

Quote JB "You are missing the main point and that is that harders make up mst of the catch!"

Why as an interim measure do they not prevent the treknets from only catching baitfish ...harders then. The reason is simple because trekking the other species is making most of their money!

This is the whole point the impact is low and the other species have always formed part of their catch.  If something can be caught then let people catch it.

 

[strikerpro]

[

 

[strikerpro]

imported post

 

[jb2]

[color=#006600]strikerpro[/color] wrote:

[color=#006600][/color]This post by JB was also a gem "Polycheate is right to a degree. It takes about R600 000, 00 per day to keep a red boat on the water."

I'd REALLY like to know how it costs R600,000 per day to keep a red boat on the water. For f..k sakes to think i have wasted my time in even typing anything in response to your posts.

What's the rush strikerpro!

The excessive cost relates to the Smit Pentow cotnract. It includes the logistics and the padding of the tender that you mentioned above.

The fuel bill on a fishing vessel of similar size would include burning between a ton of fuel a a day running at low revs without the auxiliaries. The red boats with high cruising speed would could exceed that.

Strikerpro, can I suggest that if you disagree, first ask for an explanation.

What have you heard about the running costs?

 

[jb2]

[color=#006600]strikerpro[/color] wrote:

"Have you not been amazed at the reduction of effort that MCM has achieved in the linefishery. The current effort is a fraction of what it ws. This is because MCM has been so firm"

Wait i get it! it's because they have become so efficient that Kortbroek et.al. have not had a chance to even get their financial statements audited and that they were able to rent out our patrol vessels becaase there is nothing to police everyone ...the foreign fleets, commercials, recreationals and treknets shiver in their pants because we have some of the best patrolling and monitoring marine conservations efforts in the world! Well done at the efforts in even bringing Abalone poaching to a grinding halt.

Everyone just got paranoid about the overfishing because they conjured up the idea of our coast being fished into oblivion.

Thanks so much for clarifying!!!!

To even contemplate that over fishing occurs in south africa - i was only the fool!

I'm done with you JB there simply is no hope for you to ever comprehend situation. Finished and klaar - good bye!

Strikerpro, you have not responded to what I said.

You mistake the management component of MCM with the compliance component.

It is clear from my post that I was referring to management steps that were taken not the quality of compliance.

The "firmness" that I was referring to was in management descisions and not in law enforcement actions.

I have written in a variety of posts about my concern for the quality of compliance.

Let's have a look at effort reductions by management while we are about it.

If you worked at ORI you would be familiar with the position created in around April of 1985 when the "A" "B" and "T" permits were created.

Since then the allocation procedures reduced effort. The type of vessels permitted were changed so that there are no longer freezer vessels in the sector and very few have overnight accomodation.  There have als been geographic range limitations placed on vessel movements that are controlled by VMS's.

Since you brought up the foreign vessels  though, here goes. You mentioned the foreign vesssels fishing in our waters.

Here you must be referring to the Japanese and Taiwanese vessels that were allowed to fish in SA from around 1978 to around 2001.

There were about 120 vessels (80 from Japan and 40 from Taiwan). They paid US$1000 per month per vessel  for the pleasure.

I was involved in the pressure from the local industry to try and have these fleets removed.

The bilateral agreements were cancelled and last year there were only arund 10 foreign registered vessels fishing for tuna in our waters but in joint ventures with local rights holders and with firm undertakings regarding skills transfers to local crews etc.

So from 120 to 10 is a reduction. (At one stage the numer of foreign vessels was lower than 10).

 

Strikerpro, nce again, before you dismiss my comments out of hand please read them carefully in context

my response was to the suggestion that MCM had allocated rights simply because there had been investment in the sector. That was the real context of the statement.

We have had loads of discussions in other threads about fishing effort that is illegal.

If you had seen my previous posts on the topic you would be aware of the lack of proper compliance. I bviously do not expect you to wade through tons of earlier posts just to join the discussion though.

You have not responded to my references to the work done by Bennet and Lamberth. Why do you think that they were wrong?