Snapper Closures and Options - part 2

[Moonlighter]

Note: This thread picks up from a discussion that started under the thread about choosing charter operators. See: http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php?t=173658&page=5

Please - no personal attacks to be posted on this thread - if you wish to address the issues raised, you're input is welcome.

The following is a copy of my post where we got onto some of the substantive issues, and where Barry and some others responded with their thoughts.


One of the most difficult debates I've heard in the snapper review process, and clearly one of the most emotional and devisive issues, is no doubt the issue of closures.

I have tried to think about it from all angles logically and without emotion, so this is my take on it.

Firstly, it seems that Fisheries will insist on an overall catch of X tonnes - say that's 400 tonnes.

Secondly, they will ultimately decide, or the sectors can agree on, how the shares of that quota will be divvied up between each sector. I understand that was agreed pretty much in the SNWG discussions some time ago. So lets say that sector split has been decided and set in stone. And it's non-transferrable between sectors under any circumstances!

Then we get to the issue of how each sector manages to stay within their quota.

Option 1
At the most simple level, one option could be that each sector fishes as normal, and once the data shows that any of them reaches their quota, then that sector stops fishing for snapper - ie, snapper fishing closes for that sector. The result of this approach is obviously that the closures could, and indeed most likely would, occur at different times for each sector.

In this scenario, the purpose of the closure is purely about stopping fishing to limit the tonnage of fish removed. It has nothing at all to do with spawning closures - which have a quite different purpose - basically, spawning closures are designed to give the fish a break from being caught when they are doing ...... well you know what!

It also requires that there is data to quantify the sector's catch - so for pro's - their existing logbook system. For charter - they already have a logbook system too. For rec - it would have to be the proposed snapper catch cards - if it wasn't that then we'd have to rely on more phone surveys or something - and I'm pretty sure not too many people would want to go that way.

Under the above option the pro's and charter sector are ahead of the game compared to us rec fishers because they've had log books in some form or another for years so they have a history of data that can be used to help predict how things will probably unfold in the future for their sectors, so they can plan the year ahead in consultation with fisheries in a way that meets the quota and minimises harm to their businesses. That's the simplified version of course but fundamentally that's what they'd do.

Because the rec data is so poor as we all know, predicting the way forward for us is much harder and the risks are therefore greater. We wouldnt want to launch the year, and find after 6 months that 90% of our quota is gone, would we? So we'll need to be very careful about how we manage to keep our sector within the quota so we avoid the one thing that we all agree on - no long snapper closures!

Option 2 would be to give more emphasis to helping the snapper breed up.

This option introduces the concept of closures with a dual purpose: firstly they would be carefully targetted spawning closure. They'd be short - say a couple of weeks at max - and timed to match the most prolific spawning times. The scientists can help here.

Secondly, such closures will potentially impact on total catch as well, so their second effect would be to reduce catch tonnage. Mainly I reckon they would impact the recreational sector because the pro's and charters could simply increase their effort (effort = number of fishing days) at other times to still catch their quotas.

Unlike the other sectors, I dont think the rec sector can really increase our efforts at other times to make up the difference - do you agree? My logic here is that once a good fishing day when you can't fish due to a closure goes past, it's been lost and can't be recovered for us rec fishers.

And since under this option all sectors still have to stay within their quotas, there could well still be "quota related" closures after or even possibly before the spawning closures, couldn't there?

That's my thought process so far.

I think option 2 is better because it does more to help the snapper numbers recover because not only does it keep the same overall quota for each sector, it gives the snapper a breeding break.

And again, whilst the spawning closures would have to cover all sectors at the same times, the subsequent "quota" closures, if they were necessary, would most likely happen at different times because, again, each sector might hit its quota limit at a different times. Or some sector/s might have decided on a few short closures early in the season as insurance against a longer more damaging closure later on. Each sector sorts this out with Fisheries to minimise damage to that sector.

If this was how things eventuated, I would not be at all bothered by the fact that the quota related closures happened at different times for each sector. For me, there is therefore no logical reason to mandate "same time closures for all", except of course for the spawning closures.

Ideally, of couse, if there was some way to avoid quota related closures for all sectors, that would be the best thing, but it may not be possible to do that and still stay within quota.

Cheers

Grant

[Moonlighter]

Barry and others provided info in the other thread that snapper spawn at different times across their range, and this could mean rolling closures at spawning times, resulting in a nightmare for both us fishermen and Fisheries to administer.

This is a good point to bear in mind - not only do any spawning closures need to work for the fish, they need to be kept simple so that the average punter out there can be aware of them and so that Fisheries can administer them efficiently.

But maybe we can say work out 2 zones from a spawning perspective and have short, sharp closures at the best possible times for the fish in those zones to do their breeding stuff. Dont know if this is possible or not, need some science here!

The other key point I was wanting to make is that if any sector reaches their quota before the end of the year, they will have to stop fishing for snapper.

That means that quota related closures might happen at different times for different sectors - seems sensible enough to me - and so I dont see the logic in demanding that quota related closures must be "one out, all out" - it just doesn't make sense to me. And I can't see why Fisheries would have issues with it either.

On the other hand, any "spawning" related closures must apply to all sectors, there can be no agrument about that, because the purpose is to let the fish breed "coitis-un-interruptus" (that's a technical term that means that can do it without being caught!) ;D

So suggestions and comments that help move us forward to a potential solution are most welcome.

Cheers

Grant

[Noelm]

as with all these sorts of things, the collection of data is the downfall, some will cheat, some will not record a catch at all, at least the pro community does have a sort of audit system, in so much as they sell their catch and therefor some provable record is kept, I remember not long ago the fisheries where doing a survey type of thing in my local area, volunteers where at ramps every day collecting data, but most fishos told them to piss off, and were paranoid the info would be used against them. Do you have a proposal for a reasonable method of data collection? if not, a full couple of months closure is the only option.

[TheRealAndy]

Yawn, yet another snapper thread. This is pointless since no person here believes the scientists or that there is a problem.

[Captain Incredible]

To follow up on both Grant's and Barry's comments I need to repeat Old Boot's, to my mind anyway, extremely significant comment: better reasoning and better more moderate, even handed management decisions with the health of the fishery as the priority.

I was in Canberra recently for a meeting on "resource allocation".

This is not just a QLD Snapper issue but one which is near the top for discussions by Australia's State Fisheries managers. (This means you, Jim Groves. You might like to tell the boys what sort of a priority resource allocation is for Qld Fisheries))

While the formal discussions are the subject of confidentiality, the lunch times discussions I believe are not. I spent a lot of time speaking to a young WA Recfish rep who had some really interesting comments on rec sector management. Remember, these are not my points of view, but those of a young, skilled, intelligent, recreational fishing representative.

In no particular order they were:
Maintain the highest possible rec fishing participation rates as possible.
DO NOT put in road blocks to participation, such as high entry fees (such as the $90 formerly proposed rec Snapper fee.)
More participation means more expenditure on support industries (tackle, boat and engine sales. charter trips, etc)
More participation is not necessarily increasing the risk to fish stocks.
Restrict the risk to fish stocks through lower bag limits. This strategy is designed to reduce the efficiency and therefore minimise the take of the top 10% which catch 90% of fish.
Try to avoid the need for intervention on sustainability grounds by having seriously low bag limits and realistic TAC on the pro sector to ensure the viability of species even with increased participation.
Ensure intervention for sustainability reasons (like the WA DHUFISH) is effective and reasonable to participants.Minister Wallace today said in his meeting today he was not ruling anything in or out as management options as long as there was proof that the sustainability of Snapper was being managed.

I won't go on as the purpose of this post is to support the thought of what Option Five might look like, especially if we are prepared to challenge some of the easily disprovable science such as post release mortality rates.

BTW, I have never supported closures as an upfront management option for the rec sector or any other sector. These closures destroy industry.

[Captain Incredible]

I met with Fisheries Minister Wallace twice over the last two days. He stated that everything is up for negotiation, including the 400 tonne TAC and therefore the sectorial allocation model.
I know that Fisheries themselves are seeking clarification from the Minister that this is the case as it really brings the whole Snapper management debate back to square one especially after two and a half years of SNWG, public consultation, etc.
Hence Grant's willingness to revisit where we could be looking for a solution.

The scientist Wayne Sumpton made a number of assertions during the SNWG which now would seem to be open to challenge.

The first is mortality rates of released Snapper. The rates quoted to the SNWG were based on studies from the NSW trap fishery. Fisheries did some catch and release studies in 2009/ 2010 on line caught fish in Qld and I believe that the mortality rates were much lower. It would be nice for Fisheries to release that new data as an FYI.

The other is that a spawning closure would be ineffective as Snapper spawn over a period of time.

If we are not dealing with specifics of tonnages and % reductions any more then a more general solution may grow legs.

It may simply be two short five or six day spawning closures to mirror the coral reef spawn closures and a reduction in bag limits to manage the fishery, based on Old Boot's better reasoning and better more moderate, even handed management decisions with the health of the fishery as the priority.

I would like Fisheries or other stakeholders to clarify whether the 400 tonne TAC has gone out the window before going too far down any line which deviates away from Option One.

The problem is the Minister has now created a fair bit of uncertainty (called hope by some) which I thnk needs to be addressed. The are more questions than answers.........

[TheRealAndy]

BTW, I have never supported closures as an upfront management option for the rec sector or any other sector. These closures destroy industry.

Keith, I am not the only one that saw your example submission.

[rando]

I dont believe that a spawning closure is as difficult to manage as has been suggested.
It is well understood that water temperature is the key spawning trigger.

A spawning closure in the appropriate temperature window may not get all spawning fish but it will get most of them.

[marto78]

Yawn, yet another snapper thread. This is pointless since no person here believes the scientists or that there is a problem.


Another exciting and meaningful post from TheRealAndy... :o