Photo of salmon haul sends the wrong message

This Shame File refers to a photo submitted to the fishvictoria gallery, see the photo here.

Andrew Smith writes:
Hi, I've just returned from a fishing trip myself. I travelled right along the Victorian coastline from SA in search of anything that swam.
      I've just opened up a picture of a fisherman, his four wheel drive and a massive haul of salmon. The first thing I could think of is who is going to tell this bloke that he doesn't need to take that many fish home. It's a disgrace that he can be allowed to to put a photo like this (almost promoting the catch and kill) on your quality web site.
      I would be far from proud to take that many fish home unless I was having to feed an army or a massive family of 12! This photo promotes the catch and kill method that I despise. Fish need to be left out there for everyone to catch, especially our youngsters.
      I'm sure whom ever reads this email will understand where I am coming from. I am a 27 year old bloke from Melbourne and I love hooking onto salmon of any size, for the thrill.
      Please only take what YOU need home and let the rest swim free... for everyone else.
Andrew, Cheltenham, Vic.
(26 July 2002)

Terry Turner writes:
There is a photo titled "A good haul of Apollo Bay Salmon" in the Photo Gallery Section on your web page.
      I do not think that this is a very good photo displaying responsible fishing. In general I believe that the fishvictoria website does an excellent job in promoting fishing but when there exists photos such as this on your website, the wrong message is being sent out to the readers.
      I do agree that this would have been a fantastic day but what has happened to the concept of take what you need for a feed and return the others back safely to the waters. At the end of the day these fish are part of the future breeding stock of our waters.
      The caption states that the size of the salmon ranged from 1.5 to 2.5 kg. Looking at the photo I believe that the fish would be more in the vicinity of 700-800 gms. The current fishing regulations state that minimum legal size for Australian Salmon is 21cm with the bag limit being 20. Unless there was 3+ people fishing that day this catch would be construed to be illegal.
      Rather than worrying about the impending closure of our waters for marine parks how about showing a concern for people like the bloke in the photo taking unnecessary numbers of fish with little regard for the future of the sport. People are constantly complaining that the fishing is nowhere near as good as it used to be yet they continually take catches like that shown.
      When your website displays such behaviour one can only infer that you consider it acceptable behaviour. This is not good enough. Terry.
(26 July 2002)

fishvictoria replies:
I am interested to hear what other readers think of this issue. Fishvictoria certainly does support responsible recreational fishing and in no way condones irresponsible or illegal activities of any sort. The photo was submitted with the caption as it appears with no information about how many anglers, etc., may have taken part in the day's fishing.
      Fishvictoria aims to provide a useful resource and forum about angling in this State and hopefully we manage to do this while trying to stay non-political. Do we have a censorship role in cases such as this when all the facts have not been made avilable? Should we make the assumption that this is a photo of illegal or irresponsible activity? Perhaps if Joe Cassar reads this he might like to reply.
      I hope readers can appreciate that we do provide this site as a service in good faith and that occasionally there may be a submitted item that upsets some people. Let us have your opinions on this matter and thanks to Andrew and Terry (above) for raising this issue and being prepared to write in about it.
Regards, Matt.
(26 July 2002)

Darren Lay replies:
Shades of Gunga-Din!!! Does anyone need that many fish, especially Salmon?? This sort of thing reminds me of the bad old days when buffoons thought themselves clever for taking large amounts of fish. Some will say things like, "in the old days the fishing was so much better - we could bring home sugar bags of fish". That's part of the problem, they took too much just because they could, and perhaps in their eyes it made them look like 'heroes'. Better to enjoy a good session but only take what you reasonably need and let the rest go! In my opinion the memories of good trips are worth more than those of big feeds. Darren.
(30 July 2002)

Ricky Amer replies:
I just hope this bloke goes back to the same spot the next day and wonders why he can't catch a fish. I dont know why they brought bag limits in, IT'S JUST COMMON SENSE, catch as many fish as you like and have heaps of fun doing it but only keep what you need and LET THE REST GO. In the past season my 3yo son Zac has caught and RELEASED more and heavier fish than the whole content of this photo. "Dad, think I'll put this one back with his mum", is what Zac says - gives them a pat then lets 'em go (he won't kiss 'em tho' - ha ha). So what did you do with all your fish? Did you enjoy them - or did the dog enjoy them - or perhaps the stray cats out the tip enjoyed them. Well it doesn't matter anyway, plenty more where they come from - I THINK NOT!
(30 July 2002)

David Grimshaw replies:
Just as a reply to Matt's request for a view on the "too many salmon"saga. I think this highlights the need for great care when a request went out for a "competition" to get Fishvictoria anglers together (see Forums). Public perception of anglers is not great. The marine parks steamroller is testament to that. We must only take what we need and let the rest go for another day. Cheers.
(31 July 2002)

Joe Cassar (who submitted the photo) replies:
I think the comments sent in to the photo submitted by me are great. However how can these people (I write people because I want you to publish this response) jump to these conclusions when they don't have any details regarding the photo? A few points you may want to add for these idiots.
a. The catch was in late 1999 before salmon limits were introduced.
b. The fish were distributed between 6 families resulting in about 2 meals per family.
c. The Fisheries officers were there on the beach when we were cleaning the fish. All were measured and found to be legal in size.
d. We also had our fishing licences checked by the officers.
e. And last of all l did not catch the fish on my own, there were others with me.
Don't get me wrong, l can understand where these people are coming from, however as proven here it is easy to jump to the wrong conclusions without having the full picture.
(31 July 2002)

D. Cassar (no relation) replies:
A picture tells a thousand words, but people who open their mouths before thinking and knowing the full story, are just plain IDIOTS! Well done on a good catch Joe!
(2 August 2002)

s020726salmon.php

Michael replies:
What's worse? The man who catches fish to feed his family or the one who catches fish for the thrill only to let them go? How many of those fish that you have released survive more than a week? Catch and Release is fine but I have trouble with the idea of targeting a species for the sake of sport if you are not planning to eat it or use it as bait. As for the photo, we were only made aware of the circumstances under which those fish were caught recently. I suspect that in future if someone is submitting a photo of their proud catch they specify the number of days fished and the number of anglers. I love fishing and target species I like to eat or use as bait only. I only take what I need as a full freezer means I am not allowed to play the following week... Think about that... :-)
(5 August 2002)

fishvictoria replies:
\Hi to all readers. This issue has obviously touched a raw nerve with many. I have personally spoken with Joe Cassar on the phone and I think he and I both regret - with hindsight - that more details were not made available when the photo was submitted. Tempers have also flared over this and words may have been written - publicly and privately from all sides - in the heat of the moment. I am convinced that Joe submitted the photo in good faith and that, on the facts now to hand, there was nothing illegal about the catch that day. Morality and responsibility are subjective and I'm not going to enter into that debate right now. To those who may have received a curt reply from Joe, he also received several inappropriate emails and was upset by this as his daughter also uses that email address. Unfortunately it has tainted Joe's experience with our site and it's unlikely he will be back. This has certainly been a learning experience and I can only endorse Michael's comments (above) regarding supplying more detailed info with photos in future. I don't see any advantage in publishing any further submissions which may contain any personal attacks or comments on what might have been said by whom, so I hope those who have sent these in will understand. Regards, Matt.
(5 August 2002)

If you have any comments or questions, use our contributor's form and be in the running for some great monthly prizes.


BACK TO THE SHAME FILE...