Shark possession limits
Submitted by Faulkner Family on Tue, 2022-01-11 18:39
I tried looking it up but couldn't realy make heads or tails of it with all the size jargen.
Could someone help me out . Got a couple today and released several more as I wasn't sure on the limit. Less in the water is better but I don't fancy getting busted
____________________________________________________________________________
RUSS and SANDY. A family that fishes together stays together
.thumbnail.jpg "Lucky's first Ruby on jig")
Dhu_west
Posts: 116
Date Joined: 30/06/20
I believe they fall under
I believe they fall under the large pelagic category which means you can take 3 of they species in the north coast region
More of a fisherman than a catcherman
Faulkner Family
Posts: 18026
Date Joined: 11/03/08
Cheers . I did the right
Cheers . I did the right thing .
RUSS and SANDY. A family that fishes together stays together
Daniel Westerduin
Posts: 429
Date Joined: 30/10/06
Yeah they are classed as
Yeah they are classed as pelagics and you are allowed three pelagics total. If you have three Sharks and then catch a Mackerel for example, you have to put the Mackerel back.
Faulkner Family
Posts: 18026
Date Joined: 11/03/08
That wouldn't be a problem.
That wouldn't be a problem. I would eat shark over mackerel any day.
Not often I get more than 1 or 2 sharks but they were in plague numbers yesterday. Another group landed about a dozen of the small models.
RUSS and SANDY. A family that fishes together stays together
Daniel Westerduin
Posts: 429
Date Joined: 30/10/06
My personal opinion, I
My personal opinion, I reckon Sharks should be in their own category and be separate to other pelagics so you could have 3 Sharks plus 3 pelagics but that isn't how it is. We definitely don't have a shortage of them in Wa.
Lastchance
Posts: 1273
Date Joined: 02/02/09
Take enough for a feed, leave
Take enough for a feed, leave the rest on the beach.