Original source · versioned page text
2015-11-10 - P&O Agenda - Item 7, Attach 1 - Historical Ecology of the Noosa Estuary Fisheries
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
Attachment 1
P&O Agenda, 10/11/15
Item 7
Historical ecology of the Noosa Estuary fisheries
Dr Ruth H. Thurstan
School of Biological Sciences and Australian Research Council Centre of
Excellence for Coral Reef Studies
The University of Queensland
Funders: Noosa Council, The Thomas Foundation and The Nature Conservancy
Cover photo: Landing place at Noosa River, a sketch extracted from an 1870
survey of the Noosa river and surrounds. Reproduced with permission of the
Museum of Lands, Mapping and Surveying.
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 53 sections
Section 2
Executive Summary
Humans have been reliant upon marine resources for centuries, but in recent
years concern has grown about the declining health of marine ecosystems. Yet
our ability to judge the extent to which marine ecosystems have been degraded
is impeded due to a lack of long-term data, making it difficult to know what
appropriate management or restoration targets should be. This study aims to
develop an understanding of historical fisheries productivity in the Noosa
Estuary. It aims to inform the Noosa community about ecological changes that
occurred prior to their lifetimes, and to provide insights into the species that
inhabited the Noosa River and their changing abundance over time.
The Noosa region has been populated for centuries by the Kabi Kabi Traditional
Owners, who harvested species such as mullet, pipis and oysters, potentially
trading these resources with inland indigenous populations. When European
settlers arrived in the region, the Kabi Kabi people were the first commercial
fishers, trading or selling oysters and other species to the settlers. Archaeological
and historical sources suggest that rock oysters and other shellfish were highly
abundant throughout the Noosa River and Lakes up until the late 19th century.
Oysters often perform a key role in coastal ecosystems as they provide habitat
upon which other species depend upon for food and shelter.
During the late 19th century, an increasing demand for oysters led to sections of
the river and lakes being privatised and leased to settlers. By the turn of the 20th
century, millions of oysters had been removed from the Noosa system, destined
for consumption in Brisbane and other Australian cities. Despite high levels of
exploitation, the beds continued to operate until the 1920s, after which oyster
leasing was largely discontinued. The decline in oysters was likely to due to a
number of factors, including declining water quality (with links to disease),
overexploitation, reduced market demand and increased competition from New
South Wales and New Zealand suppliers. Today, oyster abundance is much lower
in the Noosa system and any functional role they historically played no longer
exists.
2
Section 3
By the end of the 19th century, settlers also operated fisheries for mullet, jewfish,
tailor, bream, whiting and flathead, in addition to other species. At first, fish were
sold to local residents and as far away as Gympie. However, improved transport
networks, the establishment of the ice works and later the Fish Board at
Tewantin, enabled fish to be transported to Brisbane. The Noosa River and Lakes
provided a significant quantity of commercial fish, and from the 1920s also
supported a large, if seasonal, recreational fishing population, who were drawn
to the natural beauty of Noosa and the high quality fishing.
Commercial fishing records are limited and for the most part do not provide us
with Noosa-specific catch. It is clear from the available records that landings of
the main species have always been variable, and no significant declines in catch
are recorded, although the numbers of commercial fishers have declined over
time. Recreational catches were not recorded in government records, with the
exception of one to two years, but catches were recorded in popular media such
as newspapers, which recorded recreational and competition landings over a
period of nearly 70 years, from 1913-1980. These records, though limited,
suggest a decline in recreational catch rates during this period. While it cannot
be stated definitively why this pattern occurs, interviews with long-term fishers
and residents suggests that this was likely due to declines in fish abundance,
rather than changes in targeting behaviour.
The historical record points to significant changes in the Noosa River and Lakes:
Oysters – once plentiful – are commercially and functionally extinct; commercial
and recreational fisheries still exist, but historical records backed up by
interviews with local fishers, depict a more productive system formally than
exists today. The reasons for these changes are difficult to resolve, but in
addition to over a century of reasonably heavy exploitation, the Noosa River has
been subject to development pressure since the 1970s, and as a result has been
greatly altered from its early state. While historical data cannot provide
quantitative estimates of change for the Noosa Estuary fisheries, they provide
insights into how productive the system once was, and provide the beginnings of
an evidence base upon which more informed decisions can be made.
3
Section 4
Acknowledgements
This project would not have been possible without the librarians, Councillors,
historians, recreational and commercial fishers, Kabi Kabi Traditional Owners
and residents, who gave up their time to provide published information, cultural
and personal observations. I am extremely grateful to all. In particular:
Ray Kerkhove for his generosity in sharing and alerting me to historical sources
(including the cover picture), in particular, the history of the Kabi Kabi
Traditional Owners and resource use within the Noosa region.
The fishers and long-time residents of Noosa who kindly gave their time to be
interviewed for the project.
Genevieve Jones, Bridgette Davis, Elaine Brown, Judy Powell, Jane Harding,
George Pearce, Bryan Walsh, Michael Gloster, Rowland Hill, Jan Maddin and
Martin Drydale, for sharing and alerting me to the existence of historical data.
The staff and volunteers at the Queensland State Archives, the State Library of
Queensland, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries library, Department of
Environment and Heritage Protection library, the Museum of Lands, Mapping
and Surveying, Noosa library, Pomona Museum, Nambour library, Gympie
library, and the University of Queensland library.
We acknowledge the Kabi Kabi Traditional Owners who provided cultural
knowledge and collective memories of the Noosa River and Lakes region. They
provided the following statement for this report:
“The recovery or restoration of shellfish reefs (including oyster reefs and
fisheries) in Southern Queensland offers significant prospects to renew the
cultural links of Traditional Owners to their Traditional Estates. The need to
convey to stakeholders the importance of recognising and acting on such
4
Section 5
aspirations and on the legacy of millennia of Kabi Kabi Traditional Owners of the
Noosa River area and the wider Sunshine Coast cannot be overstated.
As Aboriginal Traditional Owners we are obligated by custom to recognise and
safeguard our history and continued connection to Country through the
maintenance of our past, present and future. We acknowledge and pay respect to
our Ancestors who continue to be present in our Country and who guide us as
the contemporary custodians and decision-makers for the wellbeing of our land,
waters and culture. We pay respect to our Elders who are guiding and helping us.
Our aspirations, vision and the actions of our daily life is to unite and address the
issues of degradation to our traditional Country and the ongoing erosion of the
values of our cultural heritage sites, landscapes and waterways. Our vision is to
restore shellfish reefs and fisheries of the Noosa, Maroochy and Mooloolah
Rivers. We welcome the opportunity to collaborate with our non-Indigenous
brothers and sisters who are making a valuable contribution to Caring for
Country. Our chief priority, as our goals are implemented, is to reach out to all
people within the Sunshine Coast and surrounds and to engage with all who are
interested in our country and our culture to play a more active role in caring for
our part of the Earth. The Earth is our Mother. As she is healed we will also be
healed.”
Kerry Jones, Arnold Jones and Bridgette Davis
Kabi Kabi Traditional Owners, Sunshine Coast
(& lease holders of the historical Maroochy River Oyster Lease)
5
Section 6
Table of contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ 4
Table of contents................................................................................................................. 6
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 7
Historical ecology ........................................................................................................................ 7
Study objectives ........................................................................................................................... 9
Previous studies .........................................................................................................................10
Methods ............................................................................................................................... 11
Data sources ................................................................................................................................11
Local knowledge ........................................................................................................................13
Data analysis ...............................................................................................................................13
Results ................................................................................................................................. 15
Data sources uncovered ..........................................................................................................15
Commercial fisheries ...............................................................................................................16
Oyster fishing ........................................................................................................................................ 17
Net fishing .............................................................................................................................................. 23
Prawn trawling .................................................................................................................................... 29
Recreational fisheries ..............................................................................................................30
Estuary and beach fishing................................................................................................................ 30
Fishing competitions ......................................................................................................................... 35
‘Outside’ fishing ................................................................................................................................... 38
Recreational records and potential bias .................................................................................... 39
Early controversy: net versus line .......................................................................................40
Megafauna ....................................................................................................................................42
Physical changes to the Noosa River...................................................................................44
Contemporary perceptions ....................................................................................................45
Summary ............................................................................................................................. 47
Key Lessons........................................................................................................................ 49
References .......................................................................................................................... 50
6
Section 7
Introduction
Historical ecology
Humans have lived adjacent to, and relied upon food and other resources from
our rivers and coasts for millennia (Erlandson et al. 2008). Yet in recent decades
levels of exploitation and alteration of these ecosystems has occurred at
unprecedented rates, resulting in widespread ecological degradation (Myers and
Patz 2009). Our ability to recognise (and potentially reverse) this degradation is,
however, hampered by a lack of information on past conditions. In many cases
we simply do not know what ecosystems looked like, or how abundant fish and
shellfish populations were prior to the commencement of exploitation and
coastal development. This lack of long-term knowledge is reinforced by
contemporary ecological datasets, which commonly span just a matter of years
or at most a few decades in length, and which therefore only provide us with
information on ecosystems after major changes have already occurred (Jackson
et al. 2001).
A lack of information on historical conditions results in a phenomenon called the
‘shifting baseline syndrome’ (Pauly 1995). Shifting baselines describes a
situation where we fail to appreciate the environmental changes that occurred
prior to our lifetimes. The older generation may recall past environments that
look quite different to today, but this knowledge does not necessarily get
translated to younger generations (Sáenz-Arroyo et al. 2005; Fig. 1). Likewise,
many older individuals are probably unaware of changes that occurred prior to
their lifetimes, and so forth. Therefore, with each subsequent generation a shift
occurs in what is perceived to be a ‘natural’ environment. This applies to both
terrestrial and coastal changes: it can affect what we perceive to be a ‘normal’
abundance of mangroves along the river, or a ‘healthy’ fish resource. The shifting
baseline syndrome is a problem for resource management as without an
appreciation of past change, we are less likely to recognise continuing
degradation or attempt to halt further adverse effects.
7
Section 8
Figure 1. Sáenz-Arroyo et al. (2005) demonstrated shifting baselines among
different generations of fishermen in the Gulf of California. Older fishermen
consistently recalled past systems that had larger and more abundant
populations of fish, while younger generations observed degraded systems as
normal. Image by Anne Randall, Pier Thiret and Juan Jesus Lucero. Reproduced
with permission of Andrea Sáenz-Arroyo.
8
Section 9
To alleviate these problems, researchers have attempted to improve our
understanding of past ecosystems by turning to historical data. Sources used
include archaeological data, information from government and community
archives (e.g., newspapers, books, pictures, early government surveys), local
ecological knowledge and traditional ecological knowledge (Berkes et al. 2000;
Coll et al. 2014; Sáenz-Arroyo et al. 2006). For example, archaeological remains
have uncovered information on tens of thousands of years of coastal resource
use in Australia, shedding insight into the species targeted by indigenous
populations (McNiven 1984; Ulm 2006). Archival data have provided
information on historical fishery abundance and early fishing activities, showing
that coastal systems began to be significantly impacted by human activities much
earlier than previously believed (i.e., a century or more, rather that just a few
decades ago) (Edgar and Samson 2004; Klaer 2001; Pandolfi et al. 2003;
Thurstan et al. In press). For example, a recent study by Alleway and Connell
(2015) uncovered the past presence of native oyster (Ostrea angasi) reefs along
large sections of the South Australian coast. Historical records also show that
commercial fisheries existed for this species during the 19th and early 20th
centuries, yet their presence has since largely been forgotten.
Historical data may thus provide novel information on the past structure and
functioning of ecosystems. While we are unlikely to get back to these historical
conditions (and indeed, we may not wish to), such insights provide us with
information on the health of present-day ecosystems, and provide an evidence
base upon which more informed decisions can be made.
Study objectives
This study aims to develop an understanding of historical fisheries productivity
in the Noosa Estuary. It does not intend to prescribe targets for management;
rather, it aims to inform the wider community about ecological changes that
occurred prior to their lifetimes, to provide insights into the species that
inhabited the Noosa River, and their changing abundance over time. It charts the
evolution of the fisheries and places these into the context of the broader
9
Section 10
environmental changes that have occurred within the river system in recent
decades. To achieve this, archival materials were collated and local residents
interviewed about historical fisheries in the Noosa Estuary and Lakes system.
Data collation focused upon commercial and recreational fin fisheries, prawns
and oysters.
Previous studies
This report is certainly not the first to focus upon the history of the Noosa region,
or to mention its fisheries, although it may be the first to exclusively focus upon
these within a historical context. A number of references sourced from local
history collections, academic and government libraries have guided the context
for this study and are referenced throughout. For additional information on the
history of the Noosa River, the following references are suggested:
Brown E (1996) Nineteenth Century Cooloola. MA Thesis, The University
of Queensland.
Monks C (2000) Noosa: the way it was, the way it is now. Noosa Library.
Adams RJL (2004) Noosa Horizons: a history. Ultreya Publications.
Adams RJL (2000) Noosa and Gubbi Gubbi. Ultreya Publications.
Cato N (1979) The Noosa story. John Wiley and Sons.
Wallace WAJ (1945) The mud crab collection. Noosa Library.
10
Section 11
Methods
Data sources
Archival data sources were mined for information on the fisheries of the Noosa
River and Estuary, in addition to broader environmental changes. Materials were
sourced from the following locations: the Queensland State Archives, the State
Library of Queensland, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries library,
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection library, the Museum of
Lands, Mapping and Surveying, Noosa library, Pomona Museum, Nambour
library, Gympie library, and The University of Queensland library. In addition to
material hard copies, digitised collections from The National Library of Australia
(Trove: www.nla.gov.au) were also searched.
The major archival sources consulted were: Department of Harbours and Marine
Annual Reports (1892-1970), Fish Board Annual Reports (1937-1981),
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries commercial landings records (1990-
2014), Fishery Inspectors’ correspondence (1910-1965), Brisbane Courier
(1884-1933), Courier Mail (1933-1954), Telegraph (1872-1947), Sunday Mail
(1926-1954), Gympie Times and Mary River Mining Gazette (1863-1919), The
Maryborough Chronicle (1860-1954), Nambour Chronicle and North Coast
Advertiser (1903-1983), Noosa Advocate (1917-1933) and Noosa News (sub-
sampled years 1968-2015).
At each location, or for each electronic source, a broad search of the available
material was conducted using key words and combinations thereof, e.g.,
‘fisheries’, ‘fishing’, ‘oyster’, ‘snapper’, ‘mullet’ ‘Tewantin’, ‘Noosa river’, ‘Weyba’,
‘Cootharaba’, ‘Cooroibah’ and ‘competition’. Historical spellings of places and
species were also searched to ensure earlier records were not missed, e.g.,
‘Nusa’, ‘Newsa’, ‘Neusa’, ‘Wybah’, ‘Whyba’ and ‘schnapper’. Newspaper records,
pictorial sources and local heritage references were also searched at each of the
locations visited.
11
Section 12
Any information or observations/perceptions of Noosa Estuary fisheries e.g.,
abundance, species and number caught, locations fished, number of hours fished,
were recorded and separated by method of fishing (line or net), species (oyster,
prawn, finfish, megafauna e.g., sharks, groper, sawfish), and whether the record
provided qualitative and/or quantitative information. Only catches or
information relating to the Noosa Estuary, River or Lakes system were recorded.
Catches outside of this area were not included, with the exception of fishing
activities that took place at the North Shore near Tewantin, or at the local reefs
within a few miles of the river mouth (e.g., Jew Shoal).
State government fisheries records did not often report upon the Noosa River
and Lakes system specifically, although the local oyster, prawn and mullet
fisheries were occasionally mentioned in early reports. Commercial data were
derived from three major sources: Department of Harbours and Marine Annual
Reports, Fish Board Annual Reports, and Department of Agriculture and
Fisheries commercial fisheries records (years as stated above). The method of
recording quantities of fish landed differs throughout the time series, and after
the dissolution of the Fish Board in 1982 annual landings were not recorded
again until 1990, leaving an eight-year data gap.
Fish landings were extracted for the Tewantin Fish Board from 1946-1981.
However, the few Fish Boards that existed along the coast meant that these
records do not differentiate between catches sourced from within and outside
the Noosa River. Other than Tewantin, the nearest Fish Board depots existed at
Tin Can Bay and Mooloolaba, so many of the fish processed at Tewantin would
have likely been sourced from locations such as the North Shore, possibly as far
away as Double Island Point, in addition to the Noosa River. These records do not
provide any indication of fishing effort (e.g., numbers of licenses or days fished),
hence are restricted to reporting fish landings only.
The Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries holds commercial
landings and effort data for the years 1990-2014 (2015 catches are not yet
complete and are not included in this report). From 1990, landings and fishing
12
Section 13
effort reported by days and license were extracted. As for the Fish Board reports,
landings records are not restricted to the Noosa River. Additionally, the
reporting process differs from earlier records. Since 1990 fishers have reported
their catch location as part of a Queensland-wide grid system. Each grid covers a
30nm by 30nm radius (55.6km by 55.6km). Landings were unable to be analysed
at a finer spatial resolution (6nm by 6nm) (11km by 11km) due to data
confidentiality and a lack of reporting at this scale. Grid W35 covers landings of
species originating within the Noosa saltwater lakes system (e.g., Lake
Cooroibah, Lake Weyba and part of Lake Cootharaba), and along the coast from
just south of Double Island Point (north of the Noosa Estuary) to Peregian Beach
(to the south of the Noosa Estuary). Grid V35 covers the remaining section of
Lake Cootharaba. Hence, while the spatial reporting of contemporary fish
landings differs from the Fish Board reports, the northern and southern
boundaries of W35 are likely to be similar to the areas where commercial fish
were landed for processing at the Tewantin Fish Board.
Local knowledge
Interviews were conducted with long-term local residents and fishers, in
addition to meetings with historians, archaeologists and Traditional Owners.
Fishers were asked about their historical and contemporary catch and effort,
changes in targeting behaviour and locations fished. Fishers and residents were
asked about their perceptions of changes in fish abundance within the river and
estuary system, and observations of changes in the system more generally (e.g.,
changes in shellfish populations, changes in depth/location of the river and river
mouth, mangrove coverage, impacts of development). Non-resident experts were
asked specifically about their field of study and knowledge about the Noosa
River.
Data analysis
Quantitative data on fish catch and effort could be sourced from archival
materials for both recreational and commercial fisheries. Where available, catch
rates were calculated. Catch rates from the recreational fishery were defined
13
Section 14
using two measures: number of fish landed per angler per fishing session, and
number of fish landed per angler per hour of fishing. Linear regression analysis
was performed on each of these measures to determine if significant changes in
catch rates occurred over time.
Catch rates were also compared to determine whether significant differences
existed between a) data source and b) location fished. Catch rates sourced from
newspaper reports of recreational fishing trips, competitions and a government
survey were compared. As the government survey only spanned a period of two
years (1961-62), only recreational catches reported between 1950 and 1970
were compared to the government data source, rather than the whole time
series. The Mann-Whitney test was used to examine whether median catch rates
from two different locations, or from two data sources, were statistically
different. In cases where data were provided from more than two sources, a one-
way Kruskal-Wallis test was performed, with post-hoc tests conducted using
Dunn’s multiple comparisons test.
14
Section 15
Results
Data sources uncovered
Sources uncovered included annual government reports on the early fisheries in
the Noosa River, Lakes and wider region, information on recreational fishing
competitions, recreational and commercial catches, fishery inspector reports and
correspondence concerning fishing licenses, oysters leases and complaints about
net fishing, catches or sightings of megafauna within the Noosa River system,
observations of indigenous fishing activities (although these were restricted to
second-hand reports, i.e., observations by settlers rather than first hand accounts
by indigenous people), archaeological studies of the Cooloola Coast (but not the
Noosa River specifically), and previous academic and government reports on the
fisheries and local history of the Noosa region.
In addition to searching through hard copies of local newspapers (Noosa
Advocate, Noosa News), government reports, fisheries inspector correspondence
and academic reports, approximately 10,000 individual digitised records were
searched using Trove. From these popular sources nearly 900 records were
extracted that provided either descriptive or quantitative information on the
Noosa Estuary and its fisheries, spanning the years 1871-2014. Government
records also provide commercial landings of finfish from 1946 to the present
day, and prawns from 1959, although not for the Noosa River specifically.
However, earlier records do provide insights into the Noosa River oyster fishery,
which once exported oysters to Brisbane but which ceased to exist as a
commercial fishery by the 1930s.
Thirty long-term residents including commercial, charter and recreational
fishers, business owners, historians and Traditional Owners were spoken to
about their observations of the Noosa River, its wildlife and people, with
questions adapted according to their individual expertise and experience.
15
Section 16
Fish frequently mentioned in the archival records for the Noosa Estuary include
whiting, sea bream, flathead, jewfish, mullet, tailor and prawn. Many of these
common names (e.g., bream, whiting, flathead, prawn) are used to refer to two or
more closely related species, which were rarely distinguished in the historical
records. Oysters (again, rarely distinguished to species but most likely to be rock
oyster, Saccostrea glomerata (Smith 1981)) were mentioned in earlier
documents, and occasional sightings or catches of megafauna (e.g., sharks,
groper, sawfish) were also recorded. Locations mentioned with regards to fish
catches included Lake Cootharaba, Lake Weyba, Munna Point, Tewantin, Gympie
Terrace, Noosa Heads, the river mouth and North Shore. Catches of snapper and
Spanish mackerel on the outside reefs were also occasionally reported.
Commercial fisheries
Prior to European settlement, archaeological evidence and traditional knowledge
document the use of fish and shellfish resources by the indigenous population of
the region, the Kabi Kabi Traditional Owners. Fish were caught by spearing and
netting, and oysters by diving (Tewantin State School project 1957). Fishing
seasons were linked to seasonal cycles, for example, the flowering of particular
plant species (Kabi Kabi Traditional Owners, pers. comm.). Middens along the
Cooloola coast contain shellfish remains, mainly pipi shells (Donax deltoides)
(McNiven 1984), while earlier records hint at the existence of several significant
middens along the Noosa River which contained large numbers of oyster shells
(The Brisbane Courier, 5 Jul 1877; Monks 2000). When the settlers arrived in
Queensland in the early 1800s, indigenous people used their knowledge of
coastal fisheries to catch, trade and sell fish, crustaceans and shellfish to the
growing population, making them the first commercial fishers (Kerkhove 2013).
Trading and selling of fish and oysters by indigenous inhabitants to the Noosa
settlers certainly occurred, and by the 1870s settlers were also harvesting
oysters to sell locally and further afield (Gympie Times, 25 Feb 1871) as they
took advantage of the swelling population that had settled in the Gympie region
as a result of the gold rush (Adams 2004). The timber trade of the 1870s
provided regular and reliable transport to Brisbane for the first time, and it was
16
Section 17
this mode of transport that facilitated the trade of oysters to Brisbane. In the
early 1900s it was stated that approximately four parties of licensed fishermen
supplied Gympie and other local towns with fish (The Brisbane Courier, 26 Sept
1908; Marine Department Report 1909), although the number of local fishing
families was higher than this (Adams 2004). The net fishing industry remained
largely localised to Gympie and the surrounding towns until the ice works was
established at Tewantin, at which point fish could be more readily transported to
the metropolitan market in Brisbane (see Adams 2004 and references therein).
Oyster fishing
Few records remain of the oysters and the oyster fishery that once existed in the
Noosa River. However, occasional accounts exist in fishery inspector reports and
popular articles, which, when pieced together provide insights into the past
abundance of oysters and the commercial industry. In 1876 ‘Wybah Lake’ was
described as the ‘oyster ground of the Tewantin people’ (The Telegraph, 12 Feb
1876). A visitor to the Noosa region the following year recorded that he came
across large mounds of oyster shells within the Tewantin area, of such
significance that they formed one of the ‘Lions of Tewantin’. By this date these
mounds were already being dug into for road material and were subsequently
destroyed. Stone tools were also found within them (The Brisbane Courier, 5 Jul
1877) although there is no record to say if these were preserved. A couple of
articles published later that same decade state that large quantities of oyster
shell remains existed at the location where the steamboat Culgoa (which
transported timber, passengers and goods between Noosa and Brisbane from the
1870s) berthed (Maryborough Chronicle, 1 Nov 1877):
“Other settlements worthy of mention are Tewantin, a Government township on
Noosa harbour, chiefly remarkable for the numerous aboriginal shell-mounds that
are found in the vicinity, evident traces of a former very dense population. The face
of one of these mounds, I may here parenthetically remark, forms a natural wharf
of considerable extent, and is as such used by the small steamer that plies weekly to
and from Brisbane.” Australian Town and Country Journal, 23 Aug 1879.
17
Section 18
The same source also mentioned the Tewantin oyster banks a few years later:
“Oysters are very plentiful, but are, I am told, gradually being killed by the pearl-
bearing species, which here are of no commercial value. The banks of the river at
Tewantin, for a depth of 12 or 13 feet, are entirely composed of oyster shells, which
have no doubt been accumulated by the blacks, charcoal and stone tomahawks
having been found 6ft below the surface.” Australian Town and Country Journal,
29 Apr 1882.
This location is likely to be the same as the middens referred to by the visitor in
1877, and is along the banks of the river where the present day Council
Chambers are located (pers. comm. George Pearce). The size of this midden, “a
depth of 12 or 13 feet”, and the reported extent of this and other middens in the
wider region; “piles of oyster shells were formerly found for at least 80 miles along
the range” (Brisbane Courier, 14 Nov 1924), highlight the past abundance of
oysters and the significance of this resource to the Kabi Kabi Traditional Owners.
Given that these middens were being mined for road material by the 1870s, it is
possible that these middens were once much larger. The extent of resource use is
further highlighted by reports that a navigable channel had been formed at
Tewantin due to oysters being frequently thrown up from the riverbed:
“This place happens to be where the blacks appear to have camped in large
numbers at sometime or other; the place is stony, and there are large quantities of
oysters on the stones or were at one time […] to get at the oysters the blacks from
time to time have taken the stones and oysters out of the bed of the lake, and
thrown some of them on the bank and some of them about 40 feet from this
platform, and in the course of very many years by so shifting those stones and shells
have caused a channel a few feet deep, and this is where […] the Culgoa goes
alongside to discharge her freight.” Maryborough Chronicle, 1 Nov 1877.
A local resident also highlighted the existence of a midden on Hay’s Island during
the 1960s, just prior to development of the area:
18
Section 19
“The [midden] is at Hay's Island at Noosa Heads where a heap of oyster shells rising
on a small piece of elevated ground amongst the mangroves bears testimony to the
feeding habits of the former natives of the Noosa River estuary. An effort should be
made to preserve this small piece of history when the development of Hay's Island
eventually takes place, before it becomes buried or torn apart by the sand pumps
and bulldozers...” Nambour Chronicle, 9 Feb 1967.
The remains of middens also occur within the Noosaville region, although many
have not been documented in detail. For example, in 2014 a preliminary survey
was undertaken on a midden located in central Noosaville (ARCHAEO 2014),
within which oyster, cockle and mudwhelk shell remains were found. This
midden had already been largely destroyed and its remains were at further risk
from development. Archaeological studies and the archival evidence, although
limited, clearly indicate the significance of the marine and estuarine resources to
indigenous people prior to the arrival of Europeans (McNiven 1991).
The importance of oysters to the Kabi Kabi Traditional Owners within the Noosa
region is also signalled by further references to oyster fishing, one of which
refers to an observation of people diving for oysters from a boat (Nambour
Chronicle, 17 Jun 1927), another which references the gift of a sturdy oyster boat
provided to the Kabi Kabi of Tewantin after they had succeeded in capturing the
outlaw Johnny Campbell:
“At Noosa wharf lies the recent addition to our fleet, vis., the oyster boat recently
given to the black captors of the notorious Campbell. It is substantially built, of four
oars, sets of sails, and two nets.” The Week, 3 Jul 1880.
Another story, recounted retrospectively by E.G. Swan, told of an annual ‘oyster
feast’ held at Tewantin during the 19th century:
“…from the lips of Tewantin’s oldest pioneers, one may hear stories of the early
days when the township was in the making […]. Once a year the bushways echoed
to the blackfellows' well-feasted, careless laughter. Near to the inland end of the
19
Section 20
township was held the annual corroboree of the oysters, when, from as far north as
Maryborough and southward to Caloundra, the tribes foregathered to the feast.”
Sunday Mail, 30 Jan 1927.
The first recorded purchase of an oyster section within the Noosa River occurred
in 1881 (The Queenslander, 17 Sept 1881). Oysters (in common with oyster
fisheries throughout Queensland) were worked by the use of a heavy dredge that
was hauled along the bottom of the river via a small boat, or along the bank if
within wading depth. By the 1880s Noosa oysters were being transported to
Brisbane:
“A small cutter that brings oysters to the Brisbane market was anchored on the
bank, where a tent was pitched for the accommodation of the oyster-getters. The
oysters are collected by means of a dredge, which brings up a hundredweight or
two at a time, which must "pan out" pretty well at 1s. a plate. I was informed that a
large quantity of the oysters are shipped to Brisbane every week, en route for
Melbourne; and, speaking from personal experience, I can state that Noosa oysters
are not to be despised, especially when you get them on "their native bank," and not
after a two or three days' "preserving" in sultry Brisbane.” The Queenslander, 17
Apr 1886.
Throughout the recorded history of the Noosa oyster fishery, flooding has
resulted in the loss of oysters, although this loss was sometimes succeeded by
large falls of spat (young oyster) if conditions were right. Even in its early years
the industry was vulnerable to the sudden loss of oysters from disease or
flooding, or slumps in the wider market (The Brisbane Courier, 25 Feb 1896; The
Queenslander, 29 May 1897). Concern was also expressed about oyster declines:
“Not very long ago fat and luscious bivalves were to be found in plenty; now oysters
are only to be obtained by laborious dredging or diving, and then they are of such
insignificant size as to be scarcely worth opening.” The Queenslander, 29 May
1897.
20
Section 21
Despite these early concerns, oyster deposits were still being discovered, and by
1891 Noosa had two dredge sections for lease (The Telegraph, 4 Mar 1891).
Dredge sections referred to oyster beds located in deep water, while bank
sections referred to those which uncovered or had no more than 2 feet of water
on them at low tide. While oysters occurred on the ‘banks’ of the river, the leased
sections included areas of deeper water. In 1902 three Noosa river dredge
sections were leased by the Moreton Bay Oyster Company, which dredged the
young oysters and removed them to oyster banks in Moreton Bay and Southport,
where they grew more rapidly for market. Over the next few years, large
quantities of young oysters were removed from the Noosa river system:
“The Noosa River dredge sections have turned out supplies of young oysters quite
up to expectation, each succeeding year showing marked improvement, the
working of the dredge breaking up large clusters, thereby allowing the young
oysters to develop healthily. During the year 2,000 bags of culture from this section
were dredged up and transplanted to the southern beds in the Broadwater, at
which place they thrive well.” Marine Department Report, 1905.
“The dredge section in the Noosa River still continues to yield good supplies of
cultivation, nearly 2,000 bags of which were removed by the lessees to the Bribie
and Broadwater beds, at which places it thrives well. These sections have improved
very much through being worked and thinned out, the samples obtainable being
now of a very much better class than formerly.” Marine Department Report, 1906.
It is uncertain quite how much a ‘bag’ held. Contemporary reports stated a bag
held 1,000-1,500 oysters of market size (The Brisbane Courier, 3 Apr 1880; see
also The Brisbane Courier, 19 Sept 1884) but estimates from government
sources could not be found. Additionally the size of a ‘bag’ may have varied with
time, so this value must be treated with caution. If we assume this quantity to be
accurate, between 2 and 3 million oysters were removed from the Noosa River in
each of these years. This number may have been greater if the oysters were
smaller and more could be fitted into a bag. Another (later) source states that in
the early years of the 20th century, 4,000 bags of oysters were transported by the
21
Section 22
Moreton Bay Oyster Company every winter, presumably for relaying, and that
the main Noosa lease was, “where the barge goes over the river to the upper end of
Wood’s Reach going towards the lakes” (Tewantin State School project 1957).
In 1920 the majority of the Noosa River sections were leased once again by the
Moreton Bay Oyster Company (Fig. 2), who likely undertook a similar process of
removing the Noosa River oysters for fattening in Moreton Bay. While this
procedure benefited the industry in the short term by producing marketable
oysters in large quantities over a short period of time, it is not reported how this
removal affected the substrate and the remaining oyster populations of the
Noosa River. Smith (1981) states that the big companies would acquire large
numbers of banks or oyster sections, quickly strip these areas of their oysters to
deposit upon their prime laying beds, and then forfeit the stripped beds, which
would subsequently lose their value. It is highly likely that this occurred in the
Noosa River.
Figure 2. A hand-drawn sketch from 1934, drawn by the Fisheries Inspector to
highlight the areas in the Noosa River closed to net fishing. The red numbers
indicate the Noosa oyster sections. Source: Queensland State Archives.
22
Section 23
After 1930 fewer references are made to the Noosa oyster fishery. A section was
leased to a local fisher in the 1930s, but the wider oyster industry went into
depression at this time (Smith 1981) and no references are made in government
reports about the Noosa oyster fishery after this period, with the exception of
1960. During this year it is reported that an oyster grower “transported
approximately 400 sacks of culture from Weyba Lake to Weyba Creek, where it has
been laid out in 650 trays” (Marine Department Report 1960). However,
discussions with a local resident who remembers the fisherman in question
stated that this established bed was unsuccessful (although clearly large
quantities of oysters existed in Weyba Lake). It is unclear why the Noosa oyster
fishery ceased to exist, possible reasons could include: overexploitation, disease,
removal of suitable substrate and/or declining water quality. According to
Monks (2000) the decline was due to exploitation and a loss of substrate as the
oysters and their shells were removed from the system, which young oysters
require to settle successfully. Diggles (2013; 2015) provides evidence that the
decline of oyster populations in Pumicestone Passage and Moreton Bay was due
to declining water quality, which caused recruitment failure across multiple
generations and facilitated the spread of disease.
While the Noosa oyster fishery no longer exists, an assessment recently
conducted by The Nature Conservancy into oyster recruitment in the Noosa
Estuary showed that oysters recruited in moderate numbers at nearly all sites
where settlement tiles were deployed. These included the main channel around
Tewantin and Weyba Creek, both sites of historical oyster production (see also
Monks 2000). Although conditions in the river are likely different to a century
ago, this study indicates that oyster restoration in the Noosa River may be
feasible (The Nature Conservancy 2015).
Net fishing
During the early decades of the 20th century a steady trade in fishing existed
within the Noosa River, with catches of 100-300 cases of mixed fish regularly
sent each week to Gympie and other nearby centres (Noosa Advocate, 16 May
1919; Nambour Chronicle, 11 Dec 1925). However, prior to the Second World
23
Section 24
War no central board existed to process and market commercial fishers’ net
catches. Fishers were therefore limited to marketing their fish at local
distribution centres (e.g., Gympie) or occasionally the metropolitan market in
Brisbane. A lack of swift and reliable transport meant that fish would sometimes
be unsuitable for purchase upon reaching their destination, while a lack of
freezing facilities meant that fish could not be kept longer than a few days,
meaning that the market would either be starved of fish or glutted with produce.
As a result, steady prices and a reliable income for commercial fishers did not
exist, stifling the growth of the fishing industry. The Queensland Fish Board was
established in 1936 in response to these issues, with its primary aim to improve
the supply of fish to the populace (The Fish Board 1937). The fish distribution
depot at Tewantin subsequently became a branch of the Fish Board (Fig. 3). All
commercially caught fish were supposed to be processed through the Fish Board,
and the commercial catch from the Noosa lakes and estuary would certainly have
passed through the Tewantin depot (Fig. 4), in addition to fish caught from the
ocean beaches and reefs.
24
Section 25
Figure 3. Near the ice works at Tewantin; picture shows the trolleys that were
used to unload fish from the commercial boats (date unknown). Source: Courtesy
of George Pearce.
Figure 4. Fishing boats in the Noosa River ca. 1953, owned by the Massoud and
Chaplin families. Source: Courtesy of Heritage Library, Sunshine Coast Council.
25
Section 26
The records left by the Fish Board, in addition to contemporary logbook data
collected since 1990, provide us with records of landings of commercial fish over
a 70-year period (Fig. 5). Although landings of fish are reported in Fish Board
records, fishing effort (e.g., how many days were fished, or how many fishers
were working) is not. Government correspondence states that in 1944, 11 net
crews (consisting of 1 to 4 men) actively worked the Noosa River and Lakes
(Department of Harbours and Marine 1945). Some fishers also fished part time,
so this number would have fluctuated throughout the year. This lack of
information, alongside changes in management regulations over the years and
the potential differences in areal coverage by the two datasets, means any long-
term changes in recorded commercial catch must be interpreted with caution.
What can be seen, however, is that landings of the major species were highly
variable from year to year, and that mullet have dominated commercial catches
within the Tewantin and wider region over the last 70 years (Fig. 5). These
catches declined in the 1960s, partially due to a drop in consumer demand for
mullet (the consequence of a ‘kerosene’ taste in the fish flesh, which was
subsequently found to be harmless) but also the shifting of fishing effort to the
prawn fishery, which increased rapidly throughout the 1950s before stabilising
in the 1960s (Fig. 5).
26
Section 27
500 200
Quantity landed (t) Mullet Prawns
400
150
300
100
200
No data
No data
50
100
0 0
1945 1965 1985 2005 1945 1965 1985 2005
40 80
Bream Tailor
Quantity landed (t)
30 60
20 40
No data
No data
10 20
0 0
1945 1965 1985 2005 1945 1965 1985 2005
14 8
Whiting Flathead
Quantity landed (t)
12
10 6
8
4
6
No data
4
No data
2
2
0 0
1945 1965 1985 2005 1945 1965 1985 2005
Year Year
Figure 5. Quantity of selected fish species and prawns processed through the
Tewantin Fish Board (1946-1981; black bars) and reported as caught within the
Queensland Fisheries grids W35 and V35 (1990-2014; grey bars) by line, net and
prawn trawls. Source: Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Tailor, bream, whiting and flathead have also traditionally formed a staple catch
for commercial fishers, although catches again show high variability from year to
year (Fig. 5); how much of this is due to changing fishing effort is uncertain.
Large amounts of bream were processed through the Tewantin Fish Board in
1946 and 1947 in quantities not witnessed since (Fig. 5). Comparable records
are not available prior to this, although the 1944 and 1945 reports record
quantities of bream transported from Tewantin to the metropolitan market, and
27
Section 28
suggest that the high post-war catches were limited to these two post-war years.
Higher catches could have been due to increased demand, increased fishing
effort, or large quantities of bream during these years, but it is difficult to know.
Between 1946-1981 bream landings steadily decreased, but since 1990 landings
of bream have been variable but stable. Quantities of tailor landed are also
variable from year to year, but recent landings are lower than historical landings
(Fig. 5). Whiting were also historically caught in significant numbers, together
with flathead, although flathead were caught in smaller quantities compared to
the other species. Again, catches were highly variable, but a decline was
witnessed in flathead landings between 1946-1981. From 1990 landings of
flathead increased to greater quantities than historical records (Fig. 5).
Since 1990, fishing effort has also been recorded to species, although this again
must be interpreted with care given that a number of other factors can affect
catch rates, particularly targeting behaviour of fishers as a result of changing
regulations or market incentives. Trends in catch rates (quantity of fish landed
per day fished) vary for the different species; increasing for mullet and prawn,
declining for tailor, and remaining stable for bream, whiting and flathead.
In addition to the species highlighted above, historical records show that
commercial fishers routinely caught other species in their nets, in particular,
jewfish; these could be large fish weighing up to 9kg, although most were much
smaller than this. A ‘record consignment’ of jewfish was recorded from Lake
Cootharaba in 1929, when three crews combined and together caught 55 cases
(approx. 1.1t) of jewfish weighing from 1.3-5.5kg each (The Brisbane Courier, 17
Jul 1929). The increase in minimum landing size of this species in recent years
has, however, reduced commercial landings of this species within the river
system (pers. comm., interview).
While it is unknown just how much of the landings recorded by the Fish Board
were sourced from the Noosa River and Lakes, Grant and Kesteven (1965)
suggest that of the quantities of mullet recorded by the Tewantin Fish Board
prior to 1965, probably greater than 90% of the total catch was taken from the
28
Section 29
Noosa Lakes. This percentage probably dropped in the later years of the Fish
Board: Monks (2000) states that as a result of declining catch after development
of the river mouth, many fishers turned to fishing the ocean beaches. However,
fishing on the ocean beaches was certainly a feature of the Noosa net fishery
prior to this, as reference to ocean beach hauls are recorded in Fisheries
Inspectors’ correspondence during the 1940s (Department of Harbours and
Marine 1940).
Prawn trawling
Today prawns are targeted in the Noosa River and Lakes by small beam trawls,
but this fishery did not develop until the late 1950s. Prior to this, prawns were
principally targeted for fresh bait and were caught using scissor and scoop nets.
In 1959 trials were conducted in which small beam trawlers were modified for
use within the shallow lake system, and in 1961 a combination of the depressed
market for mullet and a large run of school prawns (Metapenaeus macleayi) in
the lakes resulted in reports of over 400,000kg of prawns being trawled from the
Noosa system (Marine Department Report 1961). However, this number is not
reported in the Fish Board report for that year, this may be due to the prawns
being consigned to somewhere other than Tewantin.
While the numbers of boats working this fishery are not reported, Monks (2000)
recalled around 25 small boats working in Weyba Lake during the 1960s, and by
the 1980s around 20 prawn trawlers were reported to work seasonally in Lake
Cootharaba (Coles and Greenwood 1986). A 1978-79 survey showed that the
fishery consisted of multiple species, with the most abundant species being
juvenile eastern king prawn (Melicertus plebejus), greasyback (Metapenaeus
bennettae) and school prawns (Coles and Greenwood 1986). However, the
prawn catch from year to year within the lakes was not consistent. After the
large quantities of 1961, the 1962 catch dropped to just 45,000kg. This was
reversed in 1969, when a large run of school prawns occurred within the lakes
and trawlers (over 40 in number, Monks 2000) operating from Tewantin and
Boreen Point landed over 200,000kg (Queensland Department of Primary
Industries 1969).
29
Section 30
Prawn species were not distinguished between in government records until
1990. Of the three prawn species recorded as caught within the Noosa River and
Lakes during the 1978-79 survey (Coles and Greenwood 1986), only school
prawn have been consistently recorded every year within the W35 and V35 grids
from 1990-onwards, with eastern king prawns recorded from the year 2000 (Fig.
6). Landings records show highly variable fisheries, with no significant changes
over time in either school of eastern king prawn landings (linear regression; p-
value=0.619 and 0.614, respectively). It is unknown how much of this catch and
fishing effort occurred in the Noosa River and Lakes. Fishing effort within this
same region has declined over this period for school prawn; in 2014, seven
licenses recorded catching school prawn (a total of 63 days fishing), down from a
high of 26 in 1991 (a total of 1,103 days fishing). Fishing effort for eastern king
has remained stable, if variable, over time.
150 40
School prawn Eastern King prawn
Quantity landed (t)
30
100
20
50
10
0 0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Year Year
Figure 6. Quantity of school and eastern king prawns reported as caught within
the Queensland Fisheries grids W35 and V35 (1990-2014). Source: Queensland
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Recreational fisheries
Estuary and beach fishing
During the 1920s and 1930s Noosa was advertised as a haven for recreational
fishers and other visitors, lauded for its natural beauty and plentiful fish stocks:
30
Section 31
“The Tewantin Lakes, Queensland’s great fishing ground […]. Tewantin has some
beautiful lakes, chiefly Lake Coroyba, in which abound jew, tailor, cod, bream,
mullet, and whiting. Some enormous catches take place here, and it is generally
acknowledged by visitors to be the leading Queensland ground. Besides the lake
fishing, in Laguna Bay there are some of the best schnapper banks on the coast. The
unlimited supply of oysters is one of its lesser attractions. Plying on the Tewantin
Lakes is a fleet of motor boats. [Tewantin] is the rising watering-place of South
Queensland and rapidly becoming the most popular.” The Sydney Mail, 10 Mar
1909.
“…even the novice, with fine tackle, is assured of big catches.” Daily Standard, 12
Mar 1920.
Throughout the early 20th century, numbers of visitors to Tewantin and the
Noosa region swelled, and many of them were there to go fishing. Tourists would
fish from either the riverbanks or from rowboats (and later, small motor boats):
“In 21 days [at Tewantin] [3 persons] caught about 3,000 fish, principally whiting
(up to 22oz), flathead (up to 10lb), tailor, tarwhine, grunter, and bream. Worms
were used the whole time except when fishing for flathead, for which the bait was
whiting. Mrs R.W. Thurlow and her son Leu also had good sport, creeling over
1,500 fish in about three weeks.” The Brisbane Courier, 6 Nov 1913.
Some were repeat visitors, with one couple of from Melbourne returning for
many years to fish the river, even keeping a diary of their catches:
“Mr and Mrs J.H.J. Symon [...] have just returned to Melbourne [from Tewantin],
leaving behind them a record of 3,299 fish of various varieties that they caught
during the last half-year. Their total for the period spent at Tewantin during the
past 13 years, however, is very formidable, 44,656 fish. As they fish every day except
Sundays while at Tewantin the average per outing is approximately 22 fish.” The
Brisbane Courier, 12 Oct 1923.
31
Section 32
Figure 7. Catch of fish at Boreen Point, Lake Cootharaba ca. 1925. Source:
Courtesy of Picture Noosa/Noosa Library Service, Image No. M863036.
Recreational fishers caught many varieties of fish, but the most commonly
mentioned included whiting, flathead, bream, tailor and jewfish. During the
1920s and 30s weekly columns appeared in many newspapers, reporting catches
and fishing activities along the coast of southeast Queensland. In these early
years it was common for recreational fishers to catch as many fish as they could:
“A party of residents, numbering nine, put in the day last Sunday fishing on the
Noosa River in a motor boat […]. They were at it all day and only got 6 whiting, but
just at dark, when they were well fed up, the jewfish seemed to come in droves, and
up till 10 o'clock, when bait ran out, they landed 164 jewfish, one man bagging 38
jewies.” The Richmond River Herald, 3 Aug 1923.
“The fishing for the past few months has been splendid. Mr B Newman and his three
children caught 440 flathead in two days, a little over a week ago, and flathead,
tailor and whiting are still being caught in large numbers.” The Brisbane Courier,
30 Nov 1923.
Colin Monks (2000), a local resident of Noosa, described his personal
experiences of catching large numbers of fish when he was young, primarily
32
Section 33
within the Noosa Lakes, but also the river. The numbers he recounts are backed
up by many reports from the local newspapers of the time:
“It was common to catch 2lb whiting and to catch 30 of a catch in half an hour.”
Monks 2000.
“…whiting are now in the [Noosa] river in immense quantities, as well as many of
the larger denizens of the deep. Mr Acting-Judge Byrne, and Mr Benson, fruit expert,
left today after enjoying exceptionally good sport, several times bringing home 60
and 70, and once or twice well over the century.” Gympie Times, 14 Sept 1901.
“The silver bream were so thick in the water, schools of several hundred were seen
anywhere at all on the Weyba Creek and lake bottom together. It was not unusual
to catch bream of average 3lb in weight and 30 to 40 in an hour…” Monks 2000.
“Fishing for about five hours in the Noosa River at Tewantin last Saturday, PJ
Preston, V Cort and W Sallaway, well known residents of Cooran, landed 87 sea
bream, all of good size.” Sunday Mail, 11 Aug 1929.
“Flathead were so numerous, so much so that early morning fishermen could fish at
daylight with prawn or fish bait and come home before 7am for breakfast with an
average of 14 flathead each person to the weight of between 8 to 12lb.” Monks
2000.
“[4 persons] went line fishing at Tewantin during the holidays, caught 35 large
flathead and 12 taylor [sic] in less than two hours.” Nambour Chronicle, 9 Jan
1925.
However, fish catches were not always good, and it is likely that the poorer
catches were simply not reported in the newspaper columns:
“Lake Cootharaba: Fishing. — Usually at this time of the year prawns for baiting
purposes line the western shores of the Lake, and line fishing is just OK. This year
33
Section 34
both are virtually nil, although some good hauls of mullet have been made and
crabs are plentiful. The rush of rain water from the Kin Kin and Upper Noosa River
is keeping the Lake waters in flood and almost fresh.” Gympie Times, 2 Feb 1918.
And even in those early days, the occasional voice could be heard stating that the
fishing was not as good as before:
“Fishing very brisk. A party from Martin's Hotel caught 85 fish on Thursday, and 97
on Friday - only fishing a few hours. Although the fishing is not as good as it was 20
years ago, the anglers still get a few good days now and again.” The Brisbane
Courier, 15 Jul 1928.
During the 1920s and 30s, regular reporting of fish catches and the number of
people fishing allows the number of fish caught per angler per fishing session to
be calculated (Fig. 8a). The majority of catches comprised mixed fish, most
commonly whiting, bream and flathead. While the majority of catches comprised
less than 50 fish per angler per fishing session, some catches were considerably
higher. In some cases the number of hours fished was also described, providing
number of fish per angler per hour (Fig. 8b). While variable, catch rates could
reach 20 or more fish caught per angler per hour at times.
This habit of describing the number of fish caught seems to have declined in later
years, hence only a snapshot of catches and catch rates can be extracted from
these sources, with most catches reported between 1920 and 1940.
Furthermore, it is likely (see later section on ‘bias’) that newspapers only
reported the best catches. Hence, these figures should be assumed to be the
highest catches and catch rates for that period. Figure 8 includes catches both in
the river and North Shore near Tewantin, although the numbers of trips
recorded on the North Shore were considerably fewer. No significant differences
in catch rates between the river and North Shore were observed (median catch
rate river=26.67 fish per angler per fishing session, median North Shore=19.88,
Mann-Whitney U=1,952, p=0.186).
34
Section 35
a b
200 40
N fish fisher-1 session-1
N fish fisher-1 hr-1
150 30
100 20
50 10
0 0
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980
Year Year
Figure 8. Catch rates of mixed fish caught within the Noosa River and on the
North Shore near Tewantin by recreational anglers and recorded in newspapers.
A) Number of fish caught per fisher per fishing session (n=219). B) Number of
fish caught per fisher per hour (n=72).
Fishing competitions
As recreational fishing increased in popularity, so did fishing competitions. While
many recreational competitions today highlight the importance of catch and
release (including tag and release), or emphasise the targeting of particular
species or sizes over number of fish, this was not always the case and in the past
the winner was judged to be the person with either the greatest number of fish,
greatest weight or a combination thereof. As was the case with recreational
fishing, fishing competitions were also regularly reported in popular media.
One of the earliest reported fishing competitions to take place at Tewantin was
organised through the Queensland Amateur Fishermen’s Association, when 23
members caught 981 fish weighing 646lb (The Referee, 13 Aug 1913). During the
1920s and 1930s, several fishing clubs formed in Noosa and surrounding areas,
and clubs from other regions would also visit to hold fishing competitions in the
river or on the North Shore. Clubs regularly mentioned as fishing in the Noosa
River included, Cooroy Amateur Fishermen’s Association, Cooroora Amateur
Fishing Club, Pomona Amateur Fishing Club, Eumundi Amateur Fishing Club and
the Tewantin-Noosa Amateur Fishing Club. Popular locations fished included
Munna Point, Noosa River at Tewantin, near the mouth, and the North Shore
near Tewantin.
35
Section 36
As with recreational fishing, a variety of fish species were caught by competitors,
including bream, whiting, flathead and tailor, with mixed species bags being the
norm. However, reporting of fishing competitions was not always consistent. In
many cases only the greatest, or principal catches were reported. Sometimes the
total number of fishers competing and total catch was reported, providing us
with an average number of fish caught per competitor:
“The second competition for the year of the Tewantin Fishing Club took place on
January 31, 13 competitors taking part. The fishing took place at the Heads, where
fish were plentiful. Following the rule the competitors away from the town should
only last two hours, the fishing commenced at 8pm and ended at 10pm. All
members used mullet bait […]. A total of 225 fish were caught...” The Brisbane
Courier, 3 Feb 1926.
“The fishing competition for the McFie trophy was held in the Tewantin reach of
the Noosa River on Tuesday night, April 27, when 18 competitors took part. The
winner was W. Hooper, with 21 fish…” The Telegraph, 7 May 1926.
When split into ‘best’ catch (i.e., the top catch reported per competition) and
‘average’ catch (i.e., the total number of fish divided by the number of
competitors), quantitative records span a period of 67 years, from 1913-1980.
The majority of competitions were recorded in the late 1920s/early 1930s, and
again in the 1950s and 1960s/70s (Fig. 9). Statistically significant declines were
witnessed over time in both best and average catch rates (best: r2=0.13, p=0.001;
average: r2=0.06, p=0.021).
Records of the numbers of hours fished rarely occurred for competitions. From
the descriptive data, it appears that the allocated fishing time was variable,
however, the lack of data means that catches must be reported per ‘fishing
session’, rather than per hour.
36
Section 37
While we cannot be certain about why these declines occurred, interviews with
long-term fishers suggest it is unlikely due to changes in attitudes towards
conserving fish stocks (at which point, catch rates would have fallen because
fishers would have targeted stocks differently). This certainly occurred, but such
shifts occurred several years after the conclusion of this time series with the
introduction of bag limits and the increasing popularity of catch and release
fishing (pers. comm., interviews).
150
N fish fisher-1 competition-1
Competition best
Competition average
100
50
0
1920 1940 1960 1980
Year
Figure 9. Catch rates of fish caught during recreational fishing competitions.
Best equals the highest number of fish caught by a competitor, average equals
the total number of fish caught divided by the number of people recorded as
taking part in the competition.
37
Section 38
‘Outside’ fishing
Figure 10. Catch of snapper brought ashore at Tewantin jetty ca. 1935. Source:
Courtesy of Heritage Library, Sunshine Coast Council.
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the sport of ‘outside’ fishing, fishing
on the open ocean on the local reefs, greatly increased in popularity. Snapper
(Pagrus auratus) or ‘schnapper’ as it was referred to then, was one of the
principal fish caught during these excursions (Welsby 1905). While the majority
of charter fishing excursions took place out of Brisbane, ‘schnappering’ was
popular along the coast, and trips across the mouth of the Noosa River to fish for
snapper are recorded prior to the turn of the century:
“The second schnapper excursion of the season (writes a Tewantin correspondent)
took place on Wednesday outside Noosa Heads, when a party of three, including a
Brisbane gentleman had excellent sport, bagging between 130 and 140 splendid
fish in a few hours. The pleasure of the excursion was enhanced owing to the party
being able to leave Tewantin about daylight and return before 5 o'clock in the
afternoon. As a matter of fact, they were only absent under eleven hours.” The
Brisbane Courier, 9 Jun 1899.
38
Section 39
Similar occasions are also recorded, with parties from Brisbane sometimes
travelling to Noosa by boat to fish the local reefs, before travelling back again.
Schnappering also remained a popular sport in Noosa:
“On Wednesday, 9th instant, a party of six went out from Tewantin on a
schnappering excursion in the Waterwitch. Mr. C. Martin, owner of the boat, was in
charge. They returned in the afternoon with 483 fish, mostly schnapper. Comprised
in the total were one red groper, some parrot fish and kelpie. It is the record catch
for this season. The average weight of the catch would be over 4 lbs. Individual
catches are 56, 60, 63, 103, 107, and 94.” Worker, 17 Jun 1915.
Again, it is possible that only the higher catches were recorded within popular
media, but evidence from government reports and the occasional government
survey suggest that the local reefs were highly productive:
“Later on line fishing was tried at the Jew Shoal, off Noosa, and 184 fish, averaging
a little over 3lb were caught during 2.25 hours, including 89 schnapper, weighing
398lb […]. There were in all 12 lines out, the average being something over 21 fish
per line […]. The next day (17th) was spent drifting over the same shoal, and 405
fish weighing 999lb were decked, including a 55lb groper, 6 emperor weighing
32lb, 11 king schnapper (50lb), 39 parrot fish (83 lb), and 223 schnapper (485lb).”
Marine Department, reported in The Queenslander, 6 Aug 1910.
Other fish were also targeted on the outside reefs: mackerel by commercial
fishers and later recreational fishers, in addition to mixed bags comprised of
species such as those described in the previous paragraph. By 1944 eleven
launches targeted snapper on the local reefs off Noosa (Department of Harbours
and Marine 1945).
Recreational records and potential bias
As stated in the previous sections, it is possible that references to recreational
catches published in the newspapers only referred to the best catches, in which
39
Section 40
case, a reporting bias exists. The existence and extent of reporting bias was
evaluated by comparing catch rates from different sources: government records,
recreational catch rates reported in newspapers, and fishing competitions (best
and average catch rates). Government records of recreational fish catches exist
for the years 1961-2, when fishery inspectors at Tewantin inspected recreational
fishers’ catches to determine whether undersized fish were being illegally
retained. In so doing, they provided information on the species and number of
fish caught, locations fished, number of people fishing, and in some instances,
number of hours fished. Catch rates from this data set are thus assumed to be
reliable and representative of the size of catches that occurred at this time.
Catch rates between the four sources (recreational records, best competition
catch, average competition catch, government survey records) were compared.
Significant differences occurred between the four datasets (Kruskal-
Wallis=301.6, p=<0.001). Post-hoc tests revealed that average competition
results (1950-1970) showed no significant differences to government survey
data, while records of best competition catch rates were comparable to
recreational records. This information suggests that records of recreational
catches are indeed biased towards the best catch rates, but that reports of
average competition catches are likely to provide a more accurate depiction of
historical catch rates and trends over time.
Early controversy: net versus line
The controversy between net and line fishers is not new. Maintaining the
attraction of Tewantin as a recreational fishing centre was a factor in the
prohibition of net fishing in certain parts of the Noosa River and Lakes from the
early decades of the 20th century (Department of Harbours and Marine 1934). In
1914 net fishing was prohibited in parts of the Noosa River and Lake
Cootharaba, with further limits applied in 1919. From 1925 further portions of
the Noosa River were closed to net fishing (Department of Harbours and Marine
1934). In 1933 a number of commercial fishers formally requested that Weyba
Creek be closed to net fishing for two years, to enable the fish to travel into the
40
Section 41
Lake where they could be targeted. Portions of the lower river, as well as Weyba
Creek, were subsequently closed to net fishing (Fig. 2). Despite these closures, it
was widely believed that line fishing was becoming poorer as a result of
extensive net fishing and consequent destruction of young fish (e.g., Courier Mail,
6 Oct 1936; Department of Harbours and Marine 1937). However, subsequent
enquires by the fisheries inspector led him to report that line fishing had not
decreased:
“Every one I spoke to [about fishing] gave the same reply, “very good, could not be
better”. This is the outcome of the recent rains, which goes to show that when poor
results are obtained by the anglers, natural conditions such as prolonged spells of
dry weather are primarily the cause, and not net-fishing. As a general rule, when
line-fishing is poor, net-fishing is also poor. Another factor which could be taken
into consideration is the shallow nature of the river, and the number of small
motor-boats cruising about; this tends to frighten the fish, and does not allow them
to settle down.” Department of Harbours and Marine 1937.
In 1939 three separate petitions were presented to the Fisheries Department.
The first, from the local net fishers, requested that the closed area at the mouth
of the Noosa River and the South Shore be opened to net fishing for several
nights a week during July and August. The second and third came from local
residents, both objecting to the proposed reopening of the closed area, with one
requesting that further closures occur. These residents, however, distinguished
between net fishing and bait nets, which many recreational fishers used at the
time, stating that bait nets should continue to be allowed within the closed area.
The fisheries inspector of the time noted that:
“I do not think the request a reasonable one, if bait-nets were allowed, it would be
more detrimental to the young fish life than the ordinary fishing nets. I do not
consider that the closing of further waters would be of any benefit to line fishing,
not to the general advancement and progress of Tewantin, or the professional
fishermen.” Department of Harbours and Marine 1939.
41
Section 42
From this period onwards two opposed camps emerged, one wishing to uphold
the popularity of the Noosa River as an angler’s paradise, and the other keen to
exploit the available commercial opportunities.
Figure 11. Hauling mullet at North Shore ca. 1958. Source: Courtesy of Heritage
Library, Sunshine Coast Council.
Megafauna
Large fish have occasionally been sighted and landed within the Noosa River
system. Sharks are still a common feature of the river and lakes, although it is
likely that species such as large gropers were much more abundant in the past
compared to today (Monks 2000).
While catches of large fish were not reported regularly enough to provide us
with an indication of abundance or relative change, archival reports do provide
insights into which species did occur within the river system. One of the earliest
reports found dated from 1872, and concerned the catch of a large groper:
“Newsa River is said to be alive with fish. On Tuesday last some men hooked a
gigantic rock cod (which seems to be identical with the Sydney groper, judging
42
Section 43
from the description given). It dragged the boat about for some time, but was at
last landed with difficulty. It measured, we are told, 8 feet 4 inches in length, 6 feet
2 inches in girth [...]. Its rotundity is partly accounted for, however, by the contents
of its stomach, viz, 2 young sharks, one over three feet long, likewise 8 or 9 crabs
whole. The weight was estimated at 5 cwt [...]. As these monsters seem to prefer a
shark diet we feel inclined to enter a protest against their destruction...” Gympie
Times, 13 April 1872.
Figure 12. Groper caught in the Noosa River, 1935. Source: Courtesy of Picture
Noosa/Noosa Library Service, Image No. M856806.
While the recorded size of the groper (approx. 250 kg) caught in 1872 appears
almost fantastical, the occurrence and capture of large gropers occur throughout
the recorded history of the Noosa River. This includes the capture of a 90 kg
groper by Howard Parkyn in 1935 (Fig. 12), and a 206 kg groper the year before,
which was reported to be over 7 feet long (Nambour Chronicle, 30 Nov 1934).
Stingarees and shovelnose sharks were sometimes reported as ‘troublesome’,
usually as a result of their breaking anglers lines, although they also provided
sport for tourists who enjoyed chasing them in the shallow waters of Lake
Weyba. Occasionally jewfish up to 20 kg were caught in the lakes and the river
43
Section 44
(e.g., The Brisbane Courier, 10 Sept 1927). On at least two occasions, sawfish
were caught in fishers’ nets:
“The Noosa River at Tewantin last week gave up an unusual specimen - a sawfish
four feet seven inches long with a 17in saw. The fish which weighed 262 lbs, was
caught in a net by Tewantin professional fishemen […] 250 yards from the museum
above Tewantin.” Maryborough Chronicle, 15 Sept 1954.
Physical changes to the Noosa River
The shifting sands and changing nature of the river mouth were recorded in the
earliest surveys of the Noosa River. The development of the lower river and its
surrounds have been detailed elsewhere (e.g., Cato 1979; Gloster 1997) and will
not be repeated here, but 19th century surveys show that the entrance to the
river was located where Noosa Woods stands today, with large dune systems
existing along the Noosa spit (Chamberlain and Tomlinson 2006). The
developments of the lower reaches and Hay’s Island during the 1960s are still
remembered by long-term residents. In contrast, many of the middens that
existed along the riverbank were destroyed by the turn of the 20th century.
A common theme among long-term residents interviewed for this project was
the concern expressed at the development of the river mouth (Fig. 13), in
particular, Hay’s Island and nearby areas. Fishers’ (commercial and recreational)
expressed the view that these areas had previously been important nursery
habitat, providing food and shelter for many of the species targeted within the
river system. This view was also expressed by Monks (2000):
“In the early 1970’s the decline in fishing in the whole area became apparent over
many years with the man made alterations to the river mouth because of erosion
and shifting sands […]. With less water from the tides entering so the water levels
dropped in all the lake systems […]. Not only that the marine life and the fish knew
about it too and did not enter the River from the sea as usual – many of the area’s
net fishermen became irate as their catches dropped by at least two thirds of their
44
Section 45
usual catch. There was worse to come with the starting of Hay’s Island
development […]. What was definitely the fish breeding area of the whole of the
Noosa estuary system, with a teeming mass of mudcrabs, periwinkles, oysters by
the thousands […] and juvenile fish in their thousands – so much so the water
boiled with their presence […] were all destroyed.” Monks 2000.
Figure 13. Aerial photographs of the Noosa River mouth, taken in 1958 and
2008 and showing the development of the Noosa Bar and Sound between the
two periods. Reproduced with permission of the Department of Natural
Resources and Mines.
Contemporary perceptions
Many of the long-term residents interviewed believed that the abundance of fish
in the river had declined in their lifetimes, although it was commonly stated that,
despite declines, a good catch could still be achieved. Fishers stated that they
45
Section 46
used to observe large schools of fish in the waterways, but that the volume of fish
observed was now less. Some raised concerns about water quality, but many
interviewees compared the Noosa River favourably to other coastal rivers in the
region. Concerns were more commonly expressed for fish spawning and nursery
habitat lost as a result of development, or the detrimental effects of wash on the
banks and mangrove habitat from fast moving boats.
Commercial fishers spoke of natural cycles and seasons, emphasising that fish
varied in abundance from year to year. Generally they did not perceive any major
changes in the abundance of mullet, in common with the commercial landings
records. Two commercial fishers stated that stocks of some other species
(flathead and bream) were less in the river, but that they were not at
dangerously low levels. All recreational fishers stated that they had observed
declines in fish abundance.
All fishers (recreational and commercial) attributed declines in fish (at least in
part) to development of the river mouth and altering of the channel. Some
recreational fishers perceived the net fishery to be detrimental to fish stocks in
the river. Others mentioned the lack of prawns in recent years (which they
related to a lack of rainfall) and stated that a declining food base affects the
abundance of fin fisheries. All commercial and recreational fishers interviewed
had observed an increase in the numbers of recreational fishers in the river
throughout their lifetimes, with many stating that overpopulation affected fish
abundance, both directly (from fishing) and indirectly (a loss of habitat and
declining water quality as a result of development).
46
Section 47
Summary
The Noosa Estuary and Lakes have been exploited for centuries, with early
accounts suggesting abundant fish and shellfish stocks. Oysters, other shellfish
and finfish were an important resource for the Kabi Kabi Traditional Owners,
and they traded and sold fish to the early settlers. The earliest available fishery
records show that Noosa oysters were being transported to Brisbane and
beyond by the late 19th century. By the turn of the 20th century the net fisheries
were providing significant quantities of fish to the Gympie and Brisbane markets.
Many of these fisheries, with the exception of oyster, continue today. The
recreational fishery also commenced early on in the written history of the region,
with the Tewantin region lauded as far away as Sydney for its abundant fish
stocks and scenic beauty. These factors led to rapid increases in population and
tensions between commercial and recreational fishers as early as the 1920s. As
the commercial and recreational fisheries increased, the Noosa oyster fishery
was in quiet decline, becoming commercially extinct by the 1930s.
While oysters have greatly declined from historical levels, data on other
commercial fisheries suggest that landings were highly variable from year to
year, a feature that remains in the contemporary fisheries. The lack of
information on historical fishing effort, and in some cases a lack of data to the
species level, makes it almost impossible to draw any conclusions about changes
in population size from the historical record. Moreover, some of the commercial
stocks exploited within the Noosa region are migratory; species such as mullet
are exploited along the coast from New South Wales and north. However, time
series data are also available for recreational fishing activities within the Noosa
Estuary, and suggest a decline in catch rates for the most popular estuarine
species throughout the 20th century. These data depict a gradual decline rather
than any sudden change. This could be related to a number of factors including
urban development, loss of fish habitat (including oyster beds) and increasing
fishing pressure (recreational and commercial). Given that the time series ends
in 1980, it is unlikely to be due to changes in targeting behaviour of fishers,
47
Section 48
which largely occurred a decade or so later with the introduction of bag limits
and the increasing popularity of catch and release fishing.
The historical data collated present a picture of a highly productive estuarine
environment. Despite fundamental changes to the mouth of the river and much
greater population pressure today, the Noosa Estuary still supports a popular
recreational fishery and commercial quantities of many of the species it
historically supported. The exception to this is the oyster fishery. It is difficult to
say with certainty how the loss of oyster beds from the Noosa River affected the
wider food chain, but studies from other locations suggest that oysters play an
important role in the provision of food and shelter for fish and other
invertebrates, and contribute to improved water quality (Diggles 2013).
48
Section 49
Key Lessons
This section provides key lessens relevant for considering similar analyses of
historical fisheries productivity for other estuaries in Australia.
Coastal populations of fish and shellfish have been exploited for centuries. In
order to provide a more complete view of changes to these ecosystems,
interdisciplinary research spanning the archaeological, anthropological, social,
historical and ecological disciplines is necessary. Without such interdisciplinary
efforts we risk missing vital data sources, or misinterpreting the historical
record.
A large amount of information exists within local and state archives and with
resident experts. Archival data should be explored using multiple channels,
including popular media, government records, universities, local libraries and
local historical societies. Local and traditional ecological knowledge are
important sources of data that should not be discounted, as they provide
information on historical observations of species or periods of time that may not
be well described within the archival literature, in addition to placing acquired
data into context (e.g., any legislative, environmental or societal changes).
Researchers should approach knowledge holders at an early stage of the study,
preferably during the planning stage, and ensure that they undertake their
research with cultural sensitivity and using the appropriate channels (e.g.,
approaching Traditional Owners of the region for an understanding of
indigenous history and resource use).
The amount of time required to fully explore the various different data sources
should not be underestimated. Expect to have to reject large quantities of
historical material for every piece of data found.
Both qualitative and quantitative data are equally important for understanding
and communicating historical change, and both should be prioritised.
49
Section 50
References
Adams RJL (2004) Noosa Horizons: a history. Ultreya Publications.
Alleway HK, Connell SD (2015) Loss of an ecological baseline through the
eradication of oyster reefs from coastal ecosystems and human memory.
Conservation Biology 29, 795-804.
ARCHAEO (2014) Gibson Road Shell Midden KC:A96. Preliminary Investigation,
Noosaville, Southeast Queensland. ARCHAEO Cultural Heritage Services Pty Ltd.
Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2000) Rediscovery of traditional ecological
knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10, 1251-1262.
Coles RG, Greenwood JG (1986) Bait prawns in the Noosa River: a study of the
commercial fishery. Queensland Department of Primary Industries.
Cato N (1979) The Noosa story. John Wiley and Sons.
Chamberlain S, Tomlinson R (2006) Noosa River entrance channel dynamics.
Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway
Management, Technical Report 61. Griffith University.
Coll M, Carreras M, Ciércoles C, Cornax M-J, Gorelli G, Morote E, Sáez R (2014)
Assessing fishing and marine biodiversity changes using fishers’ perceptions: the
Spanish Mediterranean and Gulf of Cadiz case study. PLoS ONE 9(1): e85670.
Department of Harbours and Marine (1934). Correspondence of Fisheries
Inspector. Queensland State Archives, Brisbane.
Department of Harbours and Marine (1937). Fisheries Tewantin-Noosa
correspondence. Queensland State Archives, Brisbane.
50
Section 51
Department of Harbours and Marine (1939). Fisheries Tewantin-Noosa
correspondence. Queensland State Archives, Brisbane.
Department of Harbours and Marine (1940). Correspondence of Fisheries
Inspector. Queensland State Archives, Brisbane.
Department of Harbours and Marine (1945). Annual Report notes 1944-45.
Queensland State Archives, Brisbane.
Diggles BK (2013) Historical epidemiology indicates water quality decline drives
loss of oyster (Saccostrea glomerata) reefs in Moreton Bay, Australia. New
Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 47, 561-581.
Diggles BK (2015) Protection and repair of Australia’s shellfish reefs. Southern
Queensland Report, National Environmental Science Program.
Edgar GJ, Samson CR (2004) Catastrophic decline in mollusc diversity in Eastern
Tasmania and its concurrence with shellfish fisheries. Conservation Biology 18,
1579-1588.
Erlandson JM, Rick TC, Brajeb TJ, Steinberg A, Vellanoweth RL (2008) Human
impacts on ancient shellfish: a 10,000 year record from San Miguel Island,
California. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 2144-2152.
Gloster M (1997) The shaping of Noosa. Noosa Blue Publishing Group.
Grant EM, Kesteven GL (1965) Experience paper: utilisation of Noosa Lakes
mullet stocks as an example of problems in regulating the use of coastal fishery
resources. Fisheries Seminar, Department of Harbours and Marine, Brisbane.
Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH, Bjorndal KA, Botsford LW, Bourque BJ,
Bradbury RH, Cooke R, Erlandson J, Estes J, Hughes TP, Kidwell S, Lange CB,
Lenihan HS, Pandolfi JM, Peterson CH, Steneck RS, Tegner MJ, Warner RR (2001)
51
Section 52
Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293,
629-638.
Kerkhove R (2001) Aboriginal trade in fish and seafoods to settlers in
Nineteenth-Century south-east Queensland: a vibrant industry? Queensland
Review 20, 144-156.
Klaer NL (2001) Steam trawl catches from south-eastern Australia from 1918 to
1957: trends in catch rates and species composition. Marine and Freshwater
Research 52, 399-410.
Marine Department Report (1905) Report on the Marine Department for the
year 1904-1905. Department of Harbours and Marine, Queensland.
Marine Department Report (1906) Report on the Marine Department for the
year 1905-1906. Department of Harbours and Marine, Queensland.
Marine Department Report (1909) Report on the Marine Department for the
year 1908-1909. Department of Harbours and Marine, Queensland.
Marine Department Report (1960) Report on the Marine Department for the
year 1959-1960. Department of Harbours and Marine, Queensland.
Marine Department Report (1961) Report on the Marine Department for the
year 1960-1961. Department of Harbours and Marine, Queensland.
Queensland Department of Primary Industries (1969) Annual Report 1968-69.
Queensland.
McNiven IJ (1984) Initiating archaeological research in the Cooloola region,
southeast Queensland. B.A. Hons Thesis, The University of Queensland.
52
Section 53
McNiven IJ (1991) Prehistoric aboriginal settlement and subsistence in the
Cooloola region, coastal southeast Queensland. PhD Thesis, The University of
Queensland.
Monks C (2000) Noosa: the way it was, the way it is now. Noosa Library, Local
Studies Collection.
Pandolfi JM, Bradbury RH, Sala E, Hughes TP, Bjorndal KA, Cooke RG, McArdle D,
McClenachan L, Newman MJH, Paredes G, Warner RR, Jackson JBC (2003) Global
trajectories of the long-term decline of coral reef ecosystems. Science 301, 955-
958.
Myers SS, Patz JA (2009) Emerging threats to human health from global
environmental change. Annual Review of Environment and Resoures 34, 223-
252.
Pauly D (1995) Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10, 430.
Sáenz-Arroyo A, Roberts CR, Torre J, Carino-Olvera M, Enriquez-Andrade RR
(2005) Rapidly shifting environmental baselines among fishers of the Gulf of
California. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 272, 1957-
1962.
Sáenz-Arroyo A, Roberts CM, Torre J, Cariño-Olvera M, Hawkins JP (2006) The
value of evidence about past abundance: marine fauna of the Gulf of California
through the eyes of 16th to 19th century travellers. Fish and Fisheries 7, 128-
146.
Smith GS (1981) Southern Queensland’s oyster fishery. Journal of the Royal
Historical Society of Queensland 11, 45-58.
53
Section 54
Tewantin State School project (1957) History of the Tewantin-Noosa district.
Tewantin State School, November 1957.
The Fish Board (1937) First annual report of the Fish Board, for the year ended
30th June 1937. The Fish Board, Queensland.
The Nature Conservancy (2015) Restoration of Noosa Estuary: An Assessment of
Oyster Recruitment. Report by The Nature Conservancy and Ecological Service
Professionals, July 2015.
Thurstan RH, Campbell AB, Pandolfi JM (In press) 19th century narratives reveal
historic catch rates for Australian snapper (Pagrus auratus). Fish and Fisheries,
DOI: 10.1111/faf.12103.
Ulm S (2006) Coastal themes: an archaeology of the Southern Curtis Coast,
Queensland. Terra Australis 24, Pandanus Books.
Welsby T (1905) Schnappering and fishing in the Brisbane River and Moreton
Bay waters. Outridge Printing Company.
54