The Truth About Mulloway: Are They Really Overfished?

For years, we’ve been told that Mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus) are overfished, that stocks are dwindling, and that drastic measures—including restricting commercial fishing—are necessary to save them. But what if the research that led to this conclusion wasn’t as solid as we’ve been led to believe? What if bureaucrats, rather than independent scientists, were controlling the outcome?

At the heart of this debate are a series of studies that assessed Mulloway populations and helped shape the policies that now govern the species’ management. But when we dig into the research, we start to see gaps—crucial factors that were either underrepresented or ignored entirely.

The "Overfished" Claim: What Was Missed?

Mulloway is a slow-growing, late-maturing species, meaning that any decline in stock should be taken seriously. However, the research that led to the overfishing designation may not have considered some of the most critical changes in NSW fisheries over the past few decades. Let’s break it down:

1. The Commercial Fleet Was Slashed by 80%At one point, there were 4,000 commercial fishers operating in NSW. Today, that number is around 700. If commercial fishing pressure had truly driven Mulloway stocks to collapse, logic would suggest that the decline in the fleet should have allowed stocks to recover. Yet the overfished label remains. Was the research updated to reflect this massive reduction in fishing effort?

2. 31 Recreational Fishing Havens (RFHs) Removed Commercial PressureIn 2001, the NSW Government introduced 31 Recreational Fishing Havens (RFHs), including Lake Macquarie, which previously had the highest commercial landings of Mulloway in the state. These RFHs banned commercial fishing, shifting the entire fishing effort onto recreational fishers. If Mulloway stocks were still struggling despite removing commercial fishing from prime habitats, shouldn’t that have prompted a deeper look at recreational fishing impacts?

3. Marine Parks Now Cover a Third of NSW’s Coastline, over one-third of the NSW coastline is now locked up in marine parks, limiting both commercial and recreational fishing access. If these no-take zones were working as intended, we should have seen a strong recovery in Mulloway stocks. Yet, the overfishing narrative persists. Did the research incorporate the role of marine parks, or was it easier to pin the blame on commercial fishers?

The Bureaucratic Science Problem

At its core, scientific research should be independent, data-driven, and transparent. But in the modern era, there’s a growing trend of bureaucrats controlling the narrative in fisheries science, often cherry-picking data that supports pre-existing policy goals. When politics seeps into research, trust in the findings crumbles.

If Mulloway stocks were truly overfished, the industry would be the first to call for proper recovery efforts—because no one wants a dead fishery. But when research is used as a political weapon, rather than a genuine tool for sustainability, the people who suffer the most are the seafood consumers.

The Real Loser: The Seafood Consumer

Let’s be clear: when flawed research leads to unnecessary restrictions, it’s everyday Australians who lose out. Less commercial fishing means:

• Higher seafood prices due to reduced supply.

• More imported fish—often from countries with weaker sustainability standards.

• Loss of fresh, local Mulloway on restaurant menus and fish market shelves.

• Declining coastal communities, as commercial fishers are forced out of the industry.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Fisheries management should be based on indisputable science, not bureaucratic convenience. If Mulloway stocks truly need help, then let’s work together—industry, scientists, and government—to rebuild them properly. But let’s also demand research that accounts for all variables, including the dramatic reduction in commercial fishing, the impact of RFHs, and the role of marine parks.

Because at the end of the day, the public deserves fresh, sustainable, and fairly managed Australian seafood—not policy driven by agendas.