Mullet and C&R

[steve pitts]

Cheers Steve.

That's very interesting, but doesn't give the answers I was looking for.

 

Sorry Steve - I thought your questions were -

 

1. 'What is the mortality rate of mullet that are caught and released?'

2. 'Have there been any tagging studies done which may indicate mortality rates of C&R'd Mullet? If so, who has done it and what were the results?'

 

I thought that these questions had been answered in my posts.

 

 

It's good news that a high percentage of US mullet seem to survive being caught, and that seems about as near as we are going to get to studies on our own mullet, but that just makes more of a mystery why the numbers of mulet in christchurch harbour seem to be declining. If in excess of 90% of mullet caught by anglers are released and there is no netting for them, what is happening to them?

 

Who knows? - but here's a few thoughts.

 

A common theme from the results of mullet tagging studies, that I have been able to find info on, indicate that mullet favour specific locations (already known to mullet anglers and commercial fishermen) and they appear not to venture very far (20 miles seems like a long way for most mullet?) from these locations.

 

This could make local populations highly susceptible to depletion through overfishing, over-exploitation, climate variation or whatever reason anyone wishes to attach to a reduction in numbers.

 

WRT Christchurch Harbour, there is certainly netting conducted outside of the harbour, were presumably the mullet must venture from time to time and rod and line snagging (using a lead and several treble hooks with a rod and line) for mullet has gone on inside for donkey's years, despite the watchfull eyes of the EA (protection of salmonids) and club bailiffs.

 

Perhaps the 'official' <10% figure for angler retention is the tip of the iceberg and the removal of resident mullet from within and around Christchurch harbour is actually at a greater level which is proving borderline in terms of what the local mullet can sustain.

 

I can't point you to the hard evidence that this is the true picture, but to my mind there's a posibility that (if there is a decline) more 'resident' fish are being removed than are being replaced by natural processes. Now there's a familiar scenario.

 

Cheers

Steve

Edited January 1, 2010 by steve pitts

[Steve Coppolo]

Sorry Steve - I thought your questions were -

 

1. 'What is the mortality rate of mullet that are caught and released?'

2. 'Have there been any tagging studies done which may indicate mortality rates of C&R'd Mullet? If so, who has done it and what were the results?'

 

I thought that these questions had been answered in my posts.

 

 

 

 

Who knows? - but here's a few thoughts.

 

A common theme from the results of mullet tagging studies, that I have been able to find info on, indicate that mullet favour specific locations (already known to mullet anglers and commercial fishermen) and they appear not to venture very far (20 miles seems like a long way for most mullet?) from these locations.

 

This could make local populations highly susceptible to depletion through overfishing, over-exploitation, climate variation or whatever reason anyone wishes to attach to a reduction in numbers.

 

WRT Christchurch Harbour, there is certainly netting conducted outside of the harbour, were presumably the mullet must venture from time to time and rod and line snagging (using a lead and several treble hooks with a rod and line) for mullet has gone on inside for donkey's years, despite the watchfull eyes of the EA (protection of salmonids) and club bailiffs.

 

Perhaps the 'official' <10% figure for angler retention is the tip of the iceberg and the removal of resident mullet from within and around Christchurch harbour is actually at a greater level which is proving borderline in terms of what the local mullet can sustain.

 

I can't point you to the hard evidence that this is the true picture, but to my mind there's a posibility that (if there is a decline) more 'resident' fish are being removed than are being replaced by natural processes. Now there's a familiar scenario.

 

Cheers

Steve

 

O.K, Steve, perhaps I was getting a bit ahead of myself. The questions I asked about mortality rates and tagging were to try to find the answer to a main question. Maybe I should have asked 'What's happening to the Mullet in Christchurch Harbour?', first, then looked at mortality rates, etc. Either way, the info you found still only relates to striped mullet, with the tagging studies done by the NMC being inconclusive.

 

If I had to guess why numbers were declining, I would agree with your view and say that something is hapening to them outside CH. If this is the case, it proves that setting aside protected areas for migratory sea fish, is pointless. As you know, I've often questioned the effectiveness of bass nursery areas, (much to the disgust of some others), for much the same reason.

 

If nothing is happening to the mullet outside the harbour, there has to be another reason why numbers are declining there, but not in most other places around the coast - where mulet seem to be doing very well, it has to be said.

[Steve Walker]

I don't know about survival rates for large mullet caught by angling, but I do know that small mullet caught in seine nets for research purposes seemed fairly hardy little fish, and survived netting and transporting back to the laboratory pretty well.

[Steve Coppolo]

I don't know about survival rates for large mullet caught by angling, but I do know that small mullet caught in seine nets for research purposes seemed fairly hardy little fish, and survived netting and transporting back to the laboratory pretty well.

 

Which pretty much ties in with the US research on the striped Mullet.

 

So, if we assume that Mullet tollerate C&R well, what has happened to make the numbers of Mullet in Christchurch harbour, decline?

[steve pitts]

Either way, the info you found still only relates to striped mullet, with the tagging studies done by the NMC being inconclusive.

 

I think that most people would agree that the striped and grey mullet are similar in many respects and offer a reasonable substitute for our lack of knowledge on greys and in the abscence of any major tagging studies on greys having been undertaken here in UK.

 

If I had to guess why numbers were declining, I would agree with your view and say that something is hapening to them outside CH. If this is the case, it proves that setting aside protected areas for migratory sea fish, is pointless. As you know, I've often questioned the effectiveness of bass nursery areas, (much to the disgust of some others), for much the same reason.

 

My view isn't that the cause of the decline is linked to something happening only outside of CH. The taking of mullet in nets outside and by snagging and some illegal netting inside the harbour may all be contributing factors.

 

I get the feeling that mullet are being targetted as a food source more than they used to be, especially with the influences of Oriental cuisine and Hugh F-W crowing about what a sustainable resource mullet are.

 

 

If nothing is happening to the mullet outside the harbour, there has to be another reason why numbers are declining there, but not in most other places around the coast - where mulet seem to be doing very well, it has to be said.

 

My own experience with open-coast thick-lipped mullet over the past 25 odd years is that the bigger fish that we used to experience (several 5-6lb fish with the odd 7 or 8lb fish in a 3 hour session) are not as prolific and the overall numbers of fish are certainly down, but experiences do vary from year to year.

 

There now is undoubtedly more gill netting being deployed along the Dorset coastline that I fish and many mullet are taken over spring tides when they come very close inshore.

 

On the subject of C&R of mullet, I would say that the mullet that we catch on fly gear recover and swim away just as strongly as the bass and wrasse that we catch in the same locations on lures with no evidence of any fatalities.

 

Steve

[Steve Coppolo]

My view isn't that the cause of the decline is linked to something happening only outside of CH. The taking of mullet in nets outside and by snagging and some illegal netting inside the harbour may all be contributing factors.

 

You're a switched on bloke, Steve. You know why I'm asking these questions; and I won't insult your intelligence by pretending otherwise. If the decline is due to something happening outside CH, or illegal activities withinin it, why was there considered a need for compulsory C&R withing the harbour?

 

 

 

My own experience with open-coast thick-lipped mullet over the past 25 odd years is that the bigger fish that we used to experience (several 5-6lb fish with the odd 7 or 8lb fish in a 3 hour session) are not as prolific and the overall numbers of fish are certainly down, but experiences do vary from year to year.

 

I thought the very same thing a few years ago when the big mullet I used to target seemed to have disappeared, only to be replaced with smaller 2, 3 and 4lb fish. Last year, and this year, the big fish returned. They had obviously been somewhere else, or just didn't show themselves for a year or two. As you say, experiences do vary from year to year. I'd hate to think that the restrictions within CH were the result of a knee jerk response to a short term blip, not so much that it is a big problem in itself, but that it sets what I consider to be a dangerous precedent. After all, it seems the only evidence of declining stocks required to bring about these restrictions, was the word of a few mullet enthusiasts.

 

 

On the subject of C&R of mullet, I would say that the mullet that we catch on fly gear recover and swim away just as strongly as the bass and wrasse that we catch in the same locations on lures with no evidence of any fatalities.

 

Steve

 

And at least they don't have to contend with lurking predators waiting to pick them off in their fatigued state, like bonefish do.

Edited January 1, 2010 by Steve Coppolo

[steve pitts]

And at least they don't have to contend with lurking predators waiting to pick them off in their fatigued state, like bonefish do.

 

 

Sometimes the preditors do have an unfair advantage

 

[Steve Coppolo]

Sometimes the preditors do have an unfair advantage

 

 

Nice picture. I had almost exactly the same thing happen to me In Cuba this year. On my very first cast of the holiday, to!

[Dick Dastardly]

Difficult one to answer here Steve.

 

The vast majority of my "Summer fishing" for many years now has been Mullet fishing.The recent years have seen the bulk of this being for Thin Lips in my local River Rother.I very rarely fish other venues these days but feel that the amount of time I have fished for them or Thick Lips previously in both harbours and open sea gives me a reasonably grounded experience to draw on.

 

I have never actually killed a mullet for any reason and allthough I know people do have never seen one killed by any other mullet angler. Yes they do fight hard but I have never ever seen one that didnt swim off strongly.But here is the rub,I know from my experience with pike that a fish swimming off strongly is no garuntee of its surviving the experience.With the pike I learned this from having to retain fish (in huge holding pens mind) prior to re location.Never had this kind of experience to speak from with mullet though.

 

By the fact that my mullet come and go with the tide I wouldnt even see any evidence of mortalities either.

 

However in the real context of this discussion even if every fish I caught was killed by me or later died it would still be a drop in the ocean.One (even the smallest net from the smallest boat) single commercial catch would far exceed probably all the mullet Ive caught in my whole life! So why in Gods name is anyone worried about mine and other RSA's catch or impact on a wild fish stock?