494kg Marlin off Exmouth
-
- Rank: Premium Member
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:04 pm
- Has liked: 81 times
- Likes received: 109 times
Re: 494kg Marlin off Exmouth
Japanese eat heaps of marlin and seem to love it, I have had it once and it was ok.
- yepi'mon
- Rank: Premium Member
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 3:00 pm
- Location: South East
- Has liked: 36 times
- Likes received: 78 times
Re: 494kg Marlin off Exmouth
Interesting and makes sense.Broomstick wrote:This isn't true. It's well established that size and fecundity are positively associated in fish. Fish live in a harsh world, and they simply don't survive long enough for their breeding capabilities to decline.yepi'mon wrote:Texas wrote:That's one of the marlin Scott & his mates released
99% of charters do not keep marlin, unless they're record size
I am not a believer of bigger fish breed more fish, than younger fish.
The young 4litres would breed more than the older Texas ( if he could).
Just saying
Gra
I have to agree with you to be honest. Gwaine Blake had the same theory in a gummy talk I went to. Any animal (including humans) are prime breeders in the adolescent to young adult age. Once you get past that breeding capabilities decline.
Not sure if it's any different in fish though.
I really don't like fisherman parading as conservationists. We aren't some great saviour of fish - we put fish through pain and stress for our own enjoyment. I think we just have to accept this rather than claim we have the best interests of fish at heart. I genuinely love fish - I've studied them for the last 5 years and plan to the rest of my life - but I love fishing more. I do agree that tagging fish does provide some meaningful data, but let's be honest, this isn't the reason people fish.
Although are we better of taking the bigger fish and letting the smaller fish grow and breed through a number of cycles OR taking the smaller fish and only letting the big fish breed??
- Boxhead
- Rank: Baitfish
- Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 9:48 am
Re: 494kg Marlin off Exmouth
I am not sure about the bigger ones.
But back in mid 80's I used to do a fair bit of Marlin & Tuna fishing out of Bermagui.
We had a mid size (120kg) Marlin capture on light line, the fish came to the boat very worn out and would not survive. We decided to boat it and fillet the fish after weigh in (was kept cool under flowing water, towels and ice. Was also captured at end of day). it was very nice cut into steaks about 1.5-2 inches thick and cooked on BBQ.
But back in mid 80's I used to do a fair bit of Marlin & Tuna fishing out of Bermagui.
We had a mid size (120kg) Marlin capture on light line, the fish came to the boat very worn out and would not survive. We decided to boat it and fillet the fish after weigh in (was kept cool under flowing water, towels and ice. Was also captured at end of day). it was very nice cut into steaks about 1.5-2 inches thick and cooked on BBQ.
Kimtown wrote:Is marlin even good to eat? I know Swordfish is alright, similar?
-
- Rank: Premium Member
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:41 am
- Location: Hoppers Crossing
- Has liked: 221 times
- Likes received: 460 times
Re: 494kg Marlin off Exmouth
This isn't true. It's well established that size and fecundity are positively associated in fish. Fish live in a harsh world, and they simply don't survive long enough for their breeding capabilities to decline.Broomstick wrote:yepi'mon wrote:Texas wrote:That's one of the marlin Scott & his mates released
99% of charters do not keep marlin, unless they're record size
I am not a believer of bigger fish breed more fish, than younger fish.
The young 4litres would breed more than the older Texas ( if he could).
Just saying
Gra
I have to agree with you to be honest. Gwaine Blake had the same theory in a gummy talk I went to. Any animal (including humans) are prime breeders in the adolescent to young adult age. Once you get past that breeding capabilities decline.
Not sure if it's any different in fish though.
Thanks Pat, I knew you'd know
- Broomstick
- Rank: Premium Member
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 10:43 am
- Has liked: 2 times
- Likes received: 37 times
Re: 494kg Marlin off Exmouth
To use bream as an example, a really big female (40cm+) can lay up to 6 million eggs a year. A small female that has recently reached maturity might only lay 500,000 eggs in a year. So it might take a small female 8+ years of breeding (factoring in that her rate of egg production will increase as she grows) before she produces what a large female spits out in one year. And the chances of a smaller fish surviving that long are slim, as smaller fish are generally more susceptible to predation etc. So in this scenario, taking a smaller fish is definitely a better option. This is a pretty simplistic way of looking at it and there are heaps of other factors involved, but in general I think taking young fish is better for the population.yepi'mon wrote:Interesting and makes sense.Broomstick wrote:This isn't true. It's well established that size and fecundity are positively associated in fish. Fish live in a harsh world, and they simply don't survive long enough for their breeding capabilities to decline.yepi'mon wrote:Texas wrote:That's one of the marlin Scott & his mates released
99% of charters do not keep marlin, unless they're record size
I am not a believer of bigger fish breed more fish, than younger fish.
The young 4litres would breed more than the older Texas ( if he could).
Just saying
Gra
I have to agree with you to be honest. Gwaine Blake had the same theory in a gummy talk I went to. Any animal (including humans) are prime breeders in the adolescent to young adult age. Once you get past that breeding capabilities decline.
Not sure if it's any different in fish though.
I really don't like fisherman parading as conservationists. We aren't some great saviour of fish - we put fish through pain and stress for our own enjoyment. I think we just have to accept this rather than claim we have the best interests of fish at heart. I genuinely love fish - I've studied them for the last 5 years and plan to the rest of my life - but I love fishing more. I do agree that tagging fish does provide some meaningful data, but let's be honest, this isn't the reason people fish.
Although are we better of taking the bigger fish and letting the smaller fish grow and breed through a number of cycles OR taking the smaller fish and only letting the big fish breed??
- Broomstick
- Rank: Premium Member
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 10:43 am
- Has liked: 2 times
- Likes received: 37 times
Re: 494kg Marlin off Exmouth
No worries Gra.Texas wrote:This isn't true. It's well established that size and fecundity are positively associated in fish. Fish live in a harsh world, and they simply don't survive long enough for their breeding capabilities to decline.Broomstick wrote:yepi'mon wrote:Texas wrote:That's one of the marlin Scott & his mates released
99% of charters do not keep marlin, unless they're record size
I am not a believer of bigger fish breed more fish, than younger fish.
The young 4litres would breed more than the older Texas ( if he could).
Just saying
Gra
I have to agree with you to be honest. Gwaine Blake had the same theory in a gummy talk I went to. Any animal (including humans) are prime breeders in the adolescent to young adult age. Once you get past that breeding capabilities decline.
Not sure if it's any different in fish though.
Thanks Pat, I knew you'd know
- yepi'mon
- Rank: Premium Member
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 3:00 pm
- Location: South East
- Has liked: 36 times
- Likes received: 78 times
Re: 494kg Marlin off Exmouth
Interesting mate, certainly makes sense when you put numbers to it. His other reason was bloodlines - the more "breeding" fish there are, young or old... then the better the fish blood lines that are out there.Broomstick wrote:To use bream as an example, a really big female (40cm+) can lay up to 6 million eggs a year. A small female that has recently reached maturity might only lay 500,000 eggs in a year. So it might take a small female 8+ years of breeding (factoring in that her rate of egg production will increase as she grows) before she produces what a large female spits out in one year. And the chances of a smaller fish surviving that long are slim, as smaller fish are generally more susceptible to predation etc. So in this scenario, taking a smaller fish is definitely a better option. This is a pretty simplistic way of looking at it and there are heaps of other factors involved, but in general I think taking young fish is better for the population.yepi'mon wrote:Interesting and makes sense.Broomstick wrote:This isn't true. It's well established that size and fecundity are positively associated in fish. Fish live in a harsh world, and they simply don't survive long enough for their breeding capabilities to decline.yepi'mon wrote:Texas wrote:That's one of the marlin Scott & his mates released
99% of charters do not keep marlin, unless they're record size
I am not a believer of bigger fish breed more fish, than younger fish.
The young 4litres would breed more than the older Texas ( if he could).
Just saying
Gra
I have to agree with you to be honest. Gwaine Blake had the same theory in a gummy talk I went to. Any animal (including humans) are prime breeders in the adolescent to young adult age. Once you get past that breeding capabilities decline.
Not sure if it's any different in fish though.
I really don't like fisherman parading as conservationists. We aren't some great saviour of fish - we put fish through pain and stress for our own enjoyment. I think we just have to accept this rather than claim we have the best interests of fish at heart. I genuinely love fish - I've studied them for the last 5 years and plan to the rest of my life - but I love fishing more. I do agree that tagging fish does provide some meaningful data, but let's be honest, this isn't the reason people fish.
Although are we better of taking the bigger fish and letting the smaller fish grow and breed through a number of cycles OR taking the smaller fish and only letting the big fish breed??
Though when it's all said and done the only sustainable way I see of doing it is to take what you eat (don't believe in freezing fish to eat).
- Broomstick
- Rank: Premium Member
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 10:43 am
- Has liked: 2 times
- Likes received: 37 times
Re: 494kg Marlin off Exmouth
Hmm that's a weird argument...I don't think that would be an issue with gummies, or any marine species really. This is generally only a problem when a population becomes geographically isolated and low gene flow results in a genetic bottleneck. Gummies move big distances (eg: between bass straight and the bays), they are a huge population, and there would be constant gene flow in and out of the population. Gawaine Blake knows his stuff (I think) so maybe I'm not quite understanding what he means?yepi'mon wrote:Interesting mate, certainly makes sense when you put numbers to it. His other reason was bloodlines - the more "breeding" fish there are, young or old... then the better the fish blood lines that are out there.Broomstick wrote:To use bream as an example, a really big female (40cm+) can lay up to 6 million eggs a year. A small female that has recently reached maturity might only lay 500,000 eggs in a year. So it might take a small female 8+ years of breeding (factoring in that her rate of egg production will increase as she grows) before she produces what a large female spits out in one year. And the chances of a smaller fish surviving that long are slim, as smaller fish are generally more susceptible to predation etc. So in this scenario, taking a smaller fish is definitely a better option. This is a pretty simplistic way of looking at it and there are heaps of other factors involved, but in general I think taking young fish is better for the population.yepi'mon wrote:Interesting and makes sense.Broomstick wrote:This isn't true. It's well established that size and fecundity are positively associated in fish. Fish live in a harsh world, and they simply don't survive long enough for their breeding capabilities to decline.yepi'mon wrote:
I have to agree with you to be honest. Gwaine Blake had the same theory in a gummy talk I went to. Any animal (including humans) are prime breeders in the adolescent to young adult age. Once you get past that breeding capabilities decline.
Not sure if it's any different in fish though.
I really don't like fisherman parading as conservationists. We aren't some great saviour of fish - we put fish through pain and stress for our own enjoyment. I think we just have to accept this rather than claim we have the best interests of fish at heart. I genuinely love fish - I've studied them for the last 5 years and plan to the rest of my life - but I love fishing more. I do agree that tagging fish does provide some meaningful data, but let's be honest, this isn't the reason people fish.
Although are we better of taking the bigger fish and letting the smaller fish grow and breed through a number of cycles OR taking the smaller fish and only letting the big fish breed??
Though when it's all said and done the only sustainable way I see of doing it is to take what you eat (don't believe in freezing fish to eat).
- yepi'mon
- Rank: Premium Member
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 3:00 pm
- Location: South East
- Has liked: 36 times
- Likes received: 78 times
Re: 494kg Marlin off Exmouth
I can't speak for him and I could have it wrong, the talk was awhile back now. All the point's I've made (of his) I believe were more for the purpose of "don't feel bad about taking a big gummy if you want" as opposed to "only take the big ones, not the small ones, for these specific reasons".Broomstick wrote:Hmm that's a weird argument...I don't think that would be an issue with gummies, or any marine species really. This is generally only a problem when a population becomes geographically isolated and low gene flow results in a genetic bottleneck. Gummies move big distances (eg: between bass straight and the bays), they are a huge population, and there would be constant gene flow in and out of the population. Gawaine Blake knows his stuff (I think) so maybe I'm not quite understanding what he means?yepi'mon wrote:Interesting mate, certainly makes sense when you put numbers to it. His other reason was bloodlines - the more "breeding" fish there are, young or old... then the better the fish blood lines that are out there.Broomstick wrote:To use bream as an example, a really big female (40cm+) can lay up to 6 million eggs a year. A small female that has recently reached maturity might only lay 500,000 eggs in a year. So it might take a small female 8+ years of breeding (factoring in that her rate of egg production will increase as she grows) before she produces what a large female spits out in one year. And the chances of a smaller fish surviving that long are slim, as smaller fish are generally more susceptible to predation etc. So in this scenario, taking a smaller fish is definitely a better option. This is a pretty simplistic way of looking at it and there are heaps of other factors involved, but in general I think taking young fish is better for the population.yepi'mon wrote:Interesting and makes sense.Broomstick wrote:
This isn't true. It's well established that size and fecundity are positively associated in fish. Fish live in a harsh world, and they simply don't survive long enough for their breeding capabilities to decline.
I really don't like fisherman parading as conservationists. We aren't some great saviour of fish - we put fish through pain and stress for our own enjoyment. I think we just have to accept this rather than claim we have the best interests of fish at heart. I genuinely love fish - I've studied them for the last 5 years and plan to the rest of my life - but I love fishing more. I do agree that tagging fish does provide some meaningful data, but let's be honest, this isn't the reason people fish.
Although are we better of taking the bigger fish and letting the smaller fish grow and breed through a number of cycles OR taking the smaller fish and only letting the big fish breed??
Though when it's all said and done the only sustainable way I see of doing it is to take what you eat (don't believe in freezing fish to eat).
-
- Rank: Premium Member
- Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:16 pm
- Has liked: 39 times
- Likes received: 356 times
Re: 494kg Marlin off Exmouth
There are always exceptional circumstances like that.Boxhead wrote:I am not sure about the bigger ones.
But back in mid 80's I used to do a fair bit of Marlin & Tuna fishing out of Bermagui.
We had a mid size (120kg) Marlin capture on light line, the fish came to the boat very worn out and would not survive. We decided to boat it and fillet the fish after weigh in (was kept cool under flowing water, towels and ice. Was also captured at end of day). it was very nice cut into steaks about 1.5-2 inches thick and cooked on BBQ.
Kimtown wrote:Is marlin even good to eat? I know Swordfish is alright, similar?
The artical is unclear on fight time or fish exhaustion etc.