Fisheries media release; Changes to trout fishing rules

[cobby]

confusion with so many different size limits across the state in different waterways.

+1

x a million. The most convoluted crap ever thought up. Surely came from a pen pusher office bunny

[4liters]

confusion with so many different size limits across the state in different waterways.

+1

x a million. The most convoluted crap ever thought up. Surely came from a pen pusher office bunny

You reckon? I doubt a public servant would know/care enough about trout or the various locations to come up with stuff like this. Seems more likely that there's a bunch of pedantic old fly fishing and train spotting enthusiasts lobbying the DEPI

[cobby]

Absolutely. They would've used available data from field officers and the stocking rates of the specific areas, combined that with the economic data from the various regions and added in the pedantic old fly fisher lobbying and arrived at this exact new regulatory point. It's a pen pushers dream

[Paulanderson]

So there are 4 rivers where they have introduced a 25 cm minimum size. In two of these rivers we should be trying to reduce the trout population to give the Maccas a fair go - not protecting trout. Upstream from Dartmouth is a major breeding area for Maccas and a lot of effort and money has gone into trying to re-establish a breeding population of Maccas in the Ovens. I have nothing against trout so do not get me wrong but I would also like to see a seriously endangered native fish species be given the maximum possible protection.

[meppstas]

confusion with so many different size limits across the state in different waterways.

+1

You should see the size limits here in Tassie, also can be confusing without the IFS booklet.. when you buy a trout license here it comes with a Tasmanian Inland Fishing code that has all the regulations for every river and lake.. it's a pocket book and a very handy one at that.. can't go wrong if you check the areas that you're going to fish on the day.. I'd think the Victorian Inland Fisheries would have one too or maybe go online and print it out..


cheers
Adrian

[Basti]

Absolutely. They would've used available data from field officers and the stocking rates of the specific areas, combined that with the economic data from the various regions and added in the pedantic old fly fisher lobbying and arrived at this exact new regulatory point. It's a pen pushers dream

How else would you suggest coming up with a size limit?

[cobby]

Absolutely. They would've used available data from field officers and the stocking rates of the specific areas, combined that with the economic data from the various regions and added in the pedantic old fly fisher lobbying and arrived at this exact new regulatory point. It's a pen pushers dream

How else would you suggest coming up with a size limit?

Have a set limit across all waterways. Completely ignore lobbying and economic data and rely solely on science. Scrap all protection on ferals? None would conclude into this jumbled mess of utter crap we have coming. You can't tell me all this is concise and clear. It took me 10 minutes and google maps to work it out and I dare say majority who aren't members of the 1wt wank brigade would be the same or even longer

[Truedogz]

I think there is merit in lifting the size limits to increase the quality of the trout taken. In recent years this has been done with Murray cod -everybody winges about the small size of the trout in many waters and one option is to slowly lift the size limit over a period of time. Too many variations can cause confusion - and frustration. A simpler solution would be to have four water classes: Streams/lakes north of the divide, and streams/lakes south of the divide. You can have large limits south of the divide to cater for the sea run trout and crater lakes. Thats one thought.

There is no go good reason not to have specific regulations for certain trophy waters like Tolondo, that just makes good sense. But too many variations for rivers is too complex and difficult to enforce.

The reality is you will never again see fisheries in streams for upland native fish such as trout cod and Macquarie perch - that has been decided. There are at present a couple of exceptions for Macquarie perch but I anticipate those loopholes will close shortly. This summer could be the last where you can target Macquarie perch before they are lost to anglers for ever.

The reality is that in our higher altitude streams the only large fish we can and will be able to target are trout, along with reddies and carp (blackfish too, for the time being). If you want to be able to enjoy our sport and access to these mountain streams then it will be with trout. And we might as well manage those fisheries to produce the best possible quality of fish.

Best Wishes

Truedogz

[cobby]

The reality is you will never again see fisheries in streams for upland native fish such as trout cod and Macquarie perch - that has been decided. There are at present a couple of exceptions for Macquarie perch but I anticipate those loopholes will close shortly. This summer could be the last where you can target Macquarie perch before they are lost to anglers for ever.

The reality is that in our higher altitude streams the only large fish we can and will be able to target are trout, along with reddies and carp (blackfish too, for the time being). If you want to be able to enjoy our sport and access to these mountain streams then it will be with trout. And we might as well manage those fisheries to produce the best possible quality of fish.

Best Wishes

Truedogz

Is that via irreversible environmental conditions or a purely economic driven department choice?

[Texas]

Truedogz is a conservationist, but not a greenie
If he was in charge of inland waters, things would be different.
Unfortunately greenie beaurocrats run the show.
Many, many years of study, means zero to these morons.

Gra