I strongly support the new Murray cod limits. 

They are desperately needed. Multiple studies in multiple locations in the Murray-Darling Basin show strong year classes of Murray cod virtually disappear when they grow to the current minimum legal size, and that Murray cod populations are seriously lacking in large adult fish.

It is clear that up until now, Murray cod limits have been far too generous, and angler kill far too high. The proposed new limits will substantially help to address this problem.

Anglers opposing the new limits should remember Murray cod are slow-growing and very vulnerable to fishing, and can only cope with a very small amount of angler kill. 

Such anglers should remember there is no mystical "right" for them to take what they deem to be a good number of Murray cod, regardless of consequences. 

The only take of Murray cod that should allowed is that shown by good science to be sustainable over the long term. 

Meanwhile, my personal opinion is that any wild river Murray cod is too valuable and inspirational to kill for a mediocre meal that no-one actually needs.

Mr Bradley's letter also had numerous errors. 

Murray cod do not reach 50 cm in one year.

In lowland rivers they generally take five years to reach this size. 

And the claim that Murray cod over 110 cm do not breed is a false and ugly myth, created by those who wish to justify killing them.

There is increasing evidence to prove the value of very large Murray cod (up to 130 cm) for breeding.

In fact, they have the highest egg counts and are the most important breeders.

What's your opinion?

Do you have some thoughts on this issue? Click here to send a letter to the editor.

Preference is given to letters of no more than 350 words.