Queensland fisheries management.. sept 2022

[Lucky_Phill]

With the new Spanish Mackerel rules coming in, it is time to reflect on how our system of fisheries management is doing. Once again we see the perceived solution to a perceived problem is “ bag limit reductions and closed seasons “. Oh, we’ll now throw in a boat limit.


One of the biggest issues facing regulators is the absence of Recreational Catch Data. This is due to a number of factors and the main problem is the lack of trust between recreational anglers and Qld Fisheries.. ie “ The Government “. There is a direct link to the mistrust of Fisheries due to the mistrust of Government.


There is no doubt over-fishing is an issue and in particular in close proximity to major cities and towns along the East coast. Recreational and Commercial activities have exploded over the last 10 – 15 years with the advent of increasingly advanced technology in GPS, Sounders and vessel motors as well as “ shared information “, via social media. Let’s also consider the economic demographic compared to years ago.


Is there actually a solution to the decreasing fish populations along the Qld east coast ? I would like to think so, but I also believe the Fishery managers are hamstrung by Government types that have agendas and also the restrictive tools used to address current problems.


The Government and Fisheries have an image problem based on events a Government undertook that has not endeared itself to the Recreational Anglers. Recreational Anglers are waiting for the “ good news ‘.


Ever decreasing bag limits, Boat limits, Size limits, Green Zones, Closed seasons, slot limits added to fuel prices, inflation, doubling of vessel and trailer regos, the RUF going to general revenue, Greens doing deals with Govt for votes in relation to Artificial reefs and Green zones, BAC destroying acres of Seagrass beds in MB allowed by State Development department and now we have a AMCS policy advisor on Fisheries Committees / Working groups.


The Commercial fishing sector is also at its’ wits end, with “ unreasonable “ reporting requirements and further restrictions limiting their ability to provide Qld consumers with quality and affordable seafood. Add to this the cluster #### in relation to White Spot disease and the continued unrestricted importation of potentially biological hazardous seafood products from certain overseas countries, is it no wonder recreational anglers will not be a part of the Governments agenda to supress “ fishing “ to a point of participation collapse, bringing down a multi-billion dollar industry, that if managed correctly, effectively and with the right tools, could be a thriving tourist and domestic mecca.


In short, the State Government are handing Qld Fisheries a knife, to take to a gun fight.

[billfisher]

With the new Spanish Mackerel rules coming in, it is time to reflect on how our system of fisheries management is doing. Once again we see the perceived solution to a perceived problem is “ bag limit reductions and closed seasons “. Oh, we’ll now throw in a boat limit.




There is no doubt over-fishing is an issue and in particular in close proximity to major cities and towns along the East coast. Recreational and Commercial activities have exploded over the last 10 – 15 years with the advent of increasingly advanced technology in GPS, Sounders and vessel motors as well as “ shared information “, via social media. Let’s also consider the economic demographic compared to years ago.


Is there actually a solution to the decreasing fish populations along the Qld east coast ? I would like to think so, but I also believe the Fishery managers are hamstrung by Government types that have agendas and also the restrictive tools used to address current problems.



Ever decreasing bag limits, Boat limits, Size limits, Green Zones, Closed seasons, slot limits added to fuel prices, inflation, doubling of vessel and trailer regos, the RUF going to general revenue, Greens doing deals with Govt for votes in relation to Artificial reefs and Green zones, BAC destroying acres of Seagrass beds in MB allowed by State Development department and now we have a AMCS policy advisor on Fisheries Committees / Working groups.




Yes, but green zones were not an initiative of any of our fisheries departments and were not intended as a fisheries management tool. You also decry the other restrictions but these are quite cost effective. It is also a bit of hyperbole to assume that they will be 'ever decreasing'.

[Lucky_Phill]

Green Zones were rolled out in QLD under guise of habitat protection and .... AND... fishing pressure dispersal.

BUT, this pales into insignificance to what is about to happen in WA.

ANOTHER FLOGGING. E-Petition raised for WA anglers supported by Keep Australia Fishing:-

" To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned ...


are opposed to the proposal by Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) to ban demersal fishing for between 8 and 9 months a year and believe it does not align to the objects of fisheries legislation.
We therefore ask the Legislative Council to:


Review the proposal by the Department for Primary Industries and Regional Development to ban West Coast demersal fishing for between 8 and 9 months a year.


The recreational fishing industry contributes over $2.4 billion dollars to the WA economy every year. Recreational fishing is a vital part of the WA lifestyle, with demersal fishing between Augusta and Kalbarri being very popular pastime amongst 1000s of West Australians. The proposed ban will not only affect the recreational fishing community it will also have a devastating flow on effect to many small businesses and families in both the metropolitan area and coastal regional towns, resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs and income.



And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray."

DID WE READ THAT.??? ........... 8 - 9 months per year. :o

What is currently happening here in Qld is just the tip of the iceberg. The " ever increasing " subterfuge of hidden agendas is starting to smell like a bucket of imported Vannamei Prawns in the February Sun. >:(

LP

[Lovey80]

Yes, but green zones were not an initiative of any of our fisheries departments and were not intended as a fisheries management tool. You also decry the other restrictions but these are quite cost effective. It is also a bit of hyperbole to assume that they will be 'ever decreasing'.

based on the last 40 years of Fisheries management this is exactly the case. Take the current Spanish Mack assessment. Based off the previous models Spanish were “sustainably” fished. Fisheries decides to change the model and bang the stock status plummets overnight.

They basically just told us that previous “best practice” for stock assessments was completely bogus and that they were vastly overstating the biomass levels and the new model shows that we are in dire straights. Why should we trust the new model?

[Dignity]

Consultation? Offer a selection already decided upon is the consultation I was offered.

[billfisher]

based on the last 40 years of Fisheries management this is exactly the case. Take the current Spanish Mack assessment. Based off the previous models Spanish were “sustainably” fished. Fisheries decides to change the model and bang the stock status plummets overnight.

They basically just told us that previous “best practice” for stock assessments was completely bogus and that they were vastly overstating the biomass levels and the new model shows that we are in dire straights. Why should we trust the new model?

You have picked out one case/ species, ie so much for 'exactly the case'.

[billfisher]

based on the last 40 years of Fisheries management this is exactly the case. Take the current Spanish Mack assessment. Based off the previous models Spanish were “sustainably” fished. Fisheries decides to change the model and bang the stock status plummets overnight.

They basically just told us that previous “best practice” for stock assessments was completely bogus and that they were vastly overstating the biomass levels and the new model shows that we are in dire straights. Why should we trust the new model?

No, the new assessment also included more up to date and comprehensive catch and size data as well as different modelling:

Spanish mackerel stock assessment | Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Queensland (daf.qld.gov.au) (https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/business-priorities/fisheries/monitoring-research/data/stock-assessment-program/spanish-mackerel-stock)

[disorderly]

No, the new assessment also included more up to date and comprehensive catch and size data as well as different modelling:

Spanish mackerel stock assessment | Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Queensland (daf.qld.gov.au) (https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/business-priorities/fisheries/monitoring-research/data/stock-assessment-program/spanish-mackerel-stock)

Comprehisive catch and size data..?

Surely you jest...::);D

This was all based on 2100 rec fishers diary entries of 4692 fishing trips which was then extropolated to match the estimated actual 660000 people that went fishing during the 12 month period...

The most common reported catch was Whiting...:-X

[billfisher]

Comprehisive catch and size data..?

Surely you jest...::);D

This was all based on 2100 rec fishers diary entries of 4692 fishing trips which was then extropolated to match the estimated actual 660000 people that went fishing during the 12 month period...

The most common reported catch was Whiting...:-X

You are playing word games. The catch data is more up to date. The 'more comprehensive' comes in with 'new biological data such as fish length and age'.

[Noelm]

Everyone wants true data for fisheries decisions, how do they collect this data! The average rec Fisher is paranoid about giving information, yet whinges and whines when anything is released because it wasn't correct (in their opinion) if anyone can suggest a legitimate, accurate method of collecting rec data, I'm sure the relevant authorities would be interested. We all want a "fair go" but I find it hard to believe that anyone on this site can say rec species and catch rates are in decline. Let's be clear, there is certainly more boats, better boats and gear, environmental issues, bag limits, slot limits, size limits, all sorts of things based on "loose data". It's easy to sit back and blame someone else, either authorities, pros, black marketers, charter operators, anyone but ourselves, collectively, WE catch a lot of fish, how to manage it is a huge issue.

[Noelm]

Just to add, there's a bit of data on "registered boats" this is a kind of scientific measurement on people who boat, but, ski boats are registered, people fish from the shore, from a Kayak, spearfish, all sorts of things can swing the numbers any way you like. There's also the old adage, "no size fits all" which is also totally relevant, what affects (say) a Gold Coast rec fisher, might not even interest someone fishing the Gulf, similarly, state by state is worlds apart. Whichever way you cut it, it's in our laps, we can turn our head and close our eyes, we can whinge, we can do the right thing, but, one things certain, this is a big issue, and people are going to get butt hurt from decisions, and in the long term, big picture, we have ourselves to blame.

[Lucky_Phill]

I have said a lot on this subject over many many years and with sitting on working groups within Qld Fisheries, I do have an insight into the workings.

I talked to the scientists, policy people, specific fishery managers, field officers and even had discussions all the way up to Ministers ( not that they count ;D ).

Generally speaking, I do believe the " ground roots " people are doing the best they can with the tools, information and funding provided.

A lot of information gathered is from social media reporting, including this forum and similar ones, information such as catches, places, peoples thoughts ( like this here ), expenditure and so much more. This is a good thing IMO. They are not collecting info in a sneaky fashion, as what Noelm clearly stated and is true, how else are they going to gather info from recreational anglers, as we " don't trust them '. A huge problem that needs solving is that very " trust " between the fishery managers and the anglers.

OK, so rec anglers do not always sit on working groups or committees or have their thoughts and ideas translated into actions, but we are stakeholders and in fact THE major stakeholder. Our economic expenditure and benefit to this State sits well above commercial rates. The thing is, Fisheries was created many many years ago to manage / support the commercial sector, issuing licensees = money for Govt. At that time recreational angling was a hobby at best. Therefore was not on the radar of any Govt department like fisheries or tourism or even TMR ( regos ). Over time recreational angling became a " behemoth " and is now a Billion Dollar Plus industry supporting thousands of jobs and business and indeed is now being recognized by Health Departments as a provider of Health and Well-Being activities across all ages. Therein lies the problem, I fell. Recreational anglers feel " undervalued ".

Here is the line I have used many times and still holds credence.

Fisheries use the term " harvest " a lot in describing the catch rates etc........ BUT... to Harvest , first you must Sow. Every recreational, commercial and charter person does NOT sow ( barring freshwater stocking impoundments ) to reap the benefit of their actions, we simply take. To try to address this, a Government has a portfolio of Fisheries to manage the " take ". Piss poor quality control if you ask me. The answer we are searching for is not contained within the " Rocket Science " book for dummies, it is much less complicated than that.

You must Sow to Harvest. Reconfiguration of poorly performing management ideas and tools is NOT working and not endearing itself to the relationship between the fishery managers and the stakeholders.

Let the facts show that NOT ONE specific fishery has returned to original Bio-mass or even close under the management of Qld Fisheries given their approach and management tools available.

Their approach is governed by the State Government ( and agendas contained within ) and their tools restricted by Government funding. I believe if the department was given a free management reign and appropriate funding, we all would not be having this discussion.

Having well known and well versed recreational anglers sit side by side with commercial folks and Fisheries people, as equal stakeholders, nutting out policy, would go a long way to repairing the mis-trust, after all, we all want the same thing, the same outcome. The problem here is, the Government will not entertain the idea of paying the stakeholders for their expertise, knowledge, time and effort. The very people that have answers and solutions also do not have the time to volunteer this and more-so, knowing their ideas will not be taken seriously enough to push into legislation.

The fishery is being hamstrung in a number of ways.

Political agendas.........
Inappropriate Funding.....
Restrictive management Tools
Stakeholder exclusions
Long term vision

Let's throw in the " divide and conquer " agenda. Pro's VS rec's. This should NOT be happening, we are equal stakeholders and are all Stewards of the Seas.

Did I mention, you first must SOW, before you can HARVEST ?

Moving forward, there is much work to be done. How do we build a trust between Fisheries and US ? probably will not happen in my lifetime.

I have to disagree with Nolem on something and that is the decline in bio-mass of specific species. Yes, the number of boats and people fishing has increased exponentially over the last 10 - 15 ( 20 ) years, but anecdotal evidence does support the reduction in numbers of target species in tidal waters and in particular average size of those species. Are those specific fisheries in danger of collapse ? Depends on who you ask. The other question is why has the specific fishery declined and to what degree ?

The decline can be put down to a number of things, more recreational fishing pressure, technology, habitat destruction, outdated commercial fishing practices,black marketeering, seasonal climate changes, pollution, uptake in charter operators and more.

What is being done to counter act this ? Same old , Same old... bag limits, size limits, closed seasons, boat limits, slot limits. IT IS NOT WORKING.

I do not have the answers... but did I mention, FIRST YOU MUST SOW, BEFORE YOU CAN HARVEST.

On a personal note, I believe the Qld fishery is OK, at best. Is it sustainable under the current legislated rules ?.... NO.

We are at a crossroads right now , with fuel prices going through the roof as well as commodity prices ( tackle, bait, boats ) and on the cusp of electric outboard motors sneaking into the industry. Recreational angling has always been based on economic circumstances and those will dictate the type of angling we undertake. There is no doubt our current economic climate ( recreational fishing ) is buoyant, but it is also peaking, IMO.

We have an opportunity, right here, right now, to invest in our future, the States future and the Fishery future. It is a simple matter of redirecting some funding sourced from the mining ( again, no Sow, just Harvest ) towards a sustainable fishery. It again, is not rocket science, first you must Sow, before you can Harvest. OR, just direct the funding gathered from the Fishing Industry and using those millions to turn the fishery into a world class attraction both tourism wise and domestically.

Think Saudi Arabia....... Oil sales will decline, so what did they do... they had a vision and invested significantly in their future, a future without oil resources.

The State Government, Fisheries and ALL stakeholders need to look forward, not 2 , 5 or 10 years down the track, further, much further. Investing in a well managed and sustainable fishery now, because not only will it cost more then, it may be too late.

I have a lot more to tell, but this is my thoughts ( novel ) for today.

LP

[Noelm]

Absolutely 100% correct Phil, we do not own the fish, we (rec and pro) simply take, the issue is huge, pros not only pay for a license, they also have big fuel, gear, and maintenance cost, just like a rec does, arguing about banning pros is useless, it's been going on for generations and never works. I have been lucky (or unlucky maybe) to have sat on a couple of "working parties" for various things, and I can tell you, it's not easy, everything has a caveat, you mention (say) boat ramps, immediately there's council, greens, state government, maritime and Christ knows who else suddenly appears out of the dark. Rec fishing is no different, there is a dozen "stakeholders" from the mum and dad/family tourist fishers to the expert to the charter operator to the tag and release only guy, and it all comes in a big bowl, all tangled up in a fuzzy mess. The time HAS come, it's not too late.....yet!

[billfisher]

OK, so rec anglers do not always sit on working groups or committees or have their thoughts and ideas translated into actions, but we are stakeholders and in fact THE major stakeholder. Our economic expenditure and benefit to this State sits well above commercial rates. The thing is, Fisheries was created many many years ago to manage / support the commercial sector, issuing licensees = money for Govt. At that time recreational angling was a hobby at best. Therefore was not on the radar of any Govt department like fisheries or tourism or even TMR ( regos ). Over time recreational angling became a " behemoth " and is now a Billion Dollar Plus industry supporting thousands of jobs and business and indeed is now being recognized by Health Departments as a provider of Health and Well-Being activities across all ages. Therein lies the problem, I fell. Recreational anglers feel " undervalued ".



Let the facts show that NOT ONE specific fishery has returned to original Bio-mass or even close under the management of Qld Fisheries given their approach and management tools available.



LP

What we spend comes under consumer discretionary. It could just as easily go to some other recreation if fishing wasn't available.

Original biomass is the anti - use approach. It's never the target of fisheries management. 60% would be very robust for a fished stock. Maximum sustainable yield is around 40%. Under fishing pressure the dynamics change. Certain classes benefit from less predation and less competition for food, This creates a surplus which can be harvested each year.

[Lucky_Phill]

What we spend comes under consumer discretionary. It could just as easily go to some other recreation if fishing wasn't available.

Original biomass is the anti - use approach. It's never the target of fisheries management. 60% would be very robust for a fished stock. Maximum sustainable yield is around 40%. Under fishing pressure the dynamics change. Certain classes benefit from less predation and less competition for food, This creates a surplus which can be harvested each year.

All well and good, but............. 60% of what ? Original bio-mass.......... what is that number ? The maximum sustainable yield is a figure based on guesswork. The formulas for sustainability are neither robust or accurate.

Again... you ( billfisher ) even mention harvested....... you cannot harvest if you don't sow. We simply take, take , take and we do jack poo poo to replenish stocks, other than outdated and " wishful thinking " new regs, year in year out.

IMO.... the whole shiteshow is a shambles from the Minister down. This is for rec's and pro's alike.

I don't have the answers or the science to back my ideas, but the two I believe in are NOT on the table within Fisheries Management, unfortunately.

here's something to ponder.

Snapper... natural recruitment is estimated at 1%................ Wild stocking recruitment is estimated at 1%. Yet FQ will not entertain the idea of wild stocking. Wild stocking can produce better outcomes if stocking sizes are above the minimum where predation is rampant.

" Not viable " is the response, but is a fishery that expires, viable ? It is not a matter of being viable, it is a matter of investing in the future of the fishery.

We could go on for hours, but until such time that FQ get unlimited reign over their mission with funding to support their projects, it will be " same old , same old ' and the losers will be the fishery.

LP

[Dignity]

"I talked to the scientists, policy people, specific fishery managers, field officers and even had discussions all the way up to Ministers ( not that they count##)."

Just to expand on this comment a colleague I worked with said "no point sucking up to the boss, working your arse off as he'll leave and you'll have to do it all over again"

Never a truer word spoken, one of the issues that makes it hard to keep on track, another election, new minister, new direction.

I'm looking forward to the next novel Phil as you certainly make a lot of sense.

[billfisher]

Well, they replenish naturally. This is actually a lot more friendly to the environment than other forms of food production. It is estimated that sustainable fisheries have 30 times less impact than livestock production and (vegetarians take note), 12 times less impact than agricultural production.

[Andrew_P]

Phill - you can sow the wild as much as you like but the numbers removed through fishing mortality and natural mortality are so high that stocking the wild won’t make a measurable difference.

There’s a reason why people stock impoundments - they are closed systems that you can measure the result of seeding (or sowing) via stocking programs. It’s not worth it in an estuary or offshore environment.

The best answers science can give us are the principles behind good fisheries management. Regular stock assessments based on scientific data providing a range of stock estimates of agreed scenarios; controlling inputs (gear, licences) and outputs (bag and size limits), and targeting a stock size that has the ability and protection to replace or rebuild itself. The hardest thing to accept is that no one knows exactly how many fish are out there, and that management decisions depend upon estimates (or informed, scientific guesses) and can impact the users of the shared, public resource.

The only way to improve rec data contributing to these assessments is through engaging with the process by volunteering accurate data ourselves; data that represents the harvest across the wide range of fishers’ ability and avidity. The risk is that the picture more accurate data paints might differ from your or my opinions on the stock, and result in management that could impact rec fisher experience. But if the best guess is the stock needs further measures to improve its resilience then surely we are big enough to accept those measures?

Food for thought

[Noelm]

I don't buy the "not viable" argument, there comes a time when Government departments must provide a "service" even if it's not profitable or "viable". How restocking works in the wild is anyone's guess, especially "wandering" species. Sure species replenish naturally, but, if we continue to take faster than they naturally restock, then it's a never ending downhill slide, with only one sad ending. No one likes size increases or bag limits, but it's the only way, I cannot see the day when rec fishermen provide accurate catch and effort information, paranoia is way too strong and ingrained.

[Dignity]

I recall attending fishing seminars at Lutwyche, Brisbane hosted by a well known tackle store. One of the speakers I recall was John Palermo who explained his method of targeting big snapper and was happy to go home with just half a dozen, next speaker was totally different, his method was targeting smaller fish, from memory at that time the minimum size was 27cm, He would regularly catch 200 and admitted one night 300 fish. This was considered acceptable at the time and he had lots of people wanting to talk to him after the presentations.

Back in those days, did we rape and pillage the fisheries, seems we did. How does the fishery recover from that sort of pressure other than by intervention through size and bag limits. I've been at the ramp when "volunteers" have been collecting data, I've been honest in my responses but as I frequent ramps as they are in my neighbourhood I've heard others responses and I know they have given crap responses. How do you collect good honest data, commercial fishermen have to advise what they have on board before they berth, no such requirement on the rec fisherman.
Unfortunately there are enough people out there that refuse because we're a Nanny state.

I have no answers but willing to listen to others thoughts.

[Noelm]

Past fishing was at times simply slaughter, it was the way it was, catch as many as you could, give them away, sell some, dump some at the cleaning table, fortunately those days are behind us, but (in my opinion) the future doesn't look too bright. I don't think we will wipe out (say) Snapper, but, restrictions will become so tight, that bringing a legal feed home is going to be an effort.

[Lovey80]

You have picked out one case/ species, ie so much for 'exactly the case'.

I can’t think of one species where the bag or TAC has increased. Only ever further restrictions. Which shows that the management tools enforced upon us are simply not working.

[Lovey80]

Phill - you can sow the wild as much as you like but the numbers removed through fishing mortality and natural mortality are so high that stocking the wild won’t make a measurable difference.

There’s a reason why people stock impoundments - they are closed systems that you can measure the result of seeding (or sowing) via stocking programs. It’s not worth it in an estuary or offshore environment.

The best answers science can give us are the principles behind good fisheries management. Regular stock assessments based on scientific data providing a range of stock estimates of agreed scenarios; controlling inputs (gear, licences) and outputs (bag and size limits), and targeting a stock size that has the ability and protection to replace or rebuild itself. The hardest thing to accept is that no one knows exactly how many fish are out there, and that management decisions depend upon estimates (or informed, scientific guesses) and can impact the users of the shared, public resource.

The only way to improve rec data contributing to these assessments is through engaging with the process by volunteering accurate data ourselves; data that represents the harvest across the wide range of fishers’ ability and avidity. The risk is that the picture more accurate data paints might differ from your or my opinions on the stock, and result in management that could impact rec fisher experience. But if the best guess is the stock needs further measures to improve its resilience then surely we are big enough to accept those measures?

Food for thought


I don't buy the "not viable" argument, there comes a time when Government departments must provide a "service" even if it's not profitable or "viable". How restocking works in the wild is anyone's guess, especially "wandering" species. Sure species replenish naturally, but, if we continue to take faster than they naturally restock, then it's a never ending downhill slide, with only one sad ending. No one likes size increases or bag limits, but it's the only way, I cannot see the day when rec fishermen provide accurate catch and effort information, paranoia is way too strong and ingrained.
Noelm, you are correct that rec fishermen won’t voluntarily supply accurate catch data. But there is a much better way of collecting Rec data and that is rough mandatory catch reporting just like the pros and charter operators do. Yes there will be kicking and screaming and it will piss people off. But we as the major stake holder in almost every major fisheries decision must be forced into accurately reporting exactly how much of the resource we harvest every month.

that’s as simple as an app where you record every fish you put in the esky. Have fisheries officers double check that harvested fish on board boats and on the shore match what is in peoples bags. The app can simply upload that data as soon as it gets back in 4G range. There are technologies out there that can also assist in fish ID to make the app more interactive in assisting fishers to accurately ID fish and could easily allow a brag mat style auto measure feature.

start with all the most heavily targeted species that are considered under threat. Spanish, Snapper, Pearl Perch, Trag, mud crabs etc. make recording your harvest an integral part of fishing.

There will be a few old timers that don’t use smart phones. They can be accounted for with a paper version they can either send in every month or scan and email etc. those people won’t need to be accounted for for much longer. Even my 86 year old grand mother uses a smart phone and an iPad now.

This was brought up by the Rec sector over 10 years ago during the RRFF review. It was shit canned by the then minister.

this only solves the data issue with stock assessments. No longer will fisheries be able to assume the catches are increasing by 7% a year because boat sales increase by 7% a year (or what ever the number is).

The other part of the solution is to get govt to really take us seriously and to start returning some of the significant revenue that rec fishers generate. Over time this will actually increase government revenue if it is done well and the fishery is returned to a world class one with significantly increased maximum sustainable yields.

artificial reefs and restocking have to be part of that. We hear “not viable” with regards to restocking. That’s simply double speak for it will cost more money to do than fisheries receives in funding. If we are getting 100% of RUF plus even 15% of the GST revenue back for all things related to fishing to go towards these things then that will be more than enough to restock big parts of the most heavily targeted species.

look at it this way. If a species (lets pick Spanish as an example). Let’s say natural recruitment is estimated at 1%. And restocking could make up another 1-2%. Then simply restricting harvest to below 1% and adding an extra 2% will move increase the biomass by 20% over a 10 year period. Get the biomass to above say 50%, then return the harvest to 1.5% per year. Over time that will not only have increased our current take, but will gradually rebuild the stock after returning it to a much more healthy state. This will also aid in natural recruitment as larger parts of the biomass will have larger size/age distributions.

to achieve this, 2 simple things need to happen. Forced Rec data reporting and government handing back some of the free revenue that is generated from this past time (and the commercial side of it too). Imagine 15% of all taxes that come from tackle, bait, outboards, boats, sounders etc being out directly into rebuilding fish stocks? If this was taken as seriously as climate change then 15% would be considered well underfunded.

[Noelm]

Yep, what you say is true, any stocking must be better than none, mandatory catch reporting would be great, but I have my doubts about participation. Part of that comes back to my government providing a "service" statement, more fisheries officers is essential, some won't like it, but the long game is where we need to be looking, I personally don't care if I get checked, and in all my time fishing, I have been "inspected" once (NSW, not QLD) and that was out past the shelf, a big fisheries patrol boat turned up to see what I was up to. There's a thousand things at play here, from the grass roots kid fishing off a jetty, right up to the charter operator. It's a very long term vision, but, the longer it gets ignored, the harder it is to fix.
edit.......I forgot, I have been checked by fisheries in Lake Illawarra crabbing one time, so I have been checked twice in total in decades of fishing.

[billfisher]

I can’t think of one species where the bag or TAC has increased. Only ever further restrictions. Which shows that the management tools enforced upon us are simply not working.

I wouldn't call it a failure. Rec fishing is open entry so with a growing population you have to consider that there are more participants. In any case some stocks appear to be increasing under current fisheries management. Plus fishing is like a mining exercise in the early stages of a fishery. It's inevitable and not a sign of failure that when they are fished down there will be more restrictions.

[chris69]

I wouldn't call it a failure. Rec fishing is open entry so with a growing population you have to consider that there are more participants. In any case some stocks appear to be increasing under current fisheries management. Plus fishing is like a mining exercise in the early stages of a fishery. It's inevitable and not a sign of failure that when they are fished down there will be more restrictions.


What fish stocks do you think have increased Billfisher.

[billfisher]

What fish stocks do you think have increased Billfisher.

Snapper in NSW in recent years. Coral trout on the GBR. Just of the top of my head - I'm sure there would be a few more.

[Noelm]

Gees, I can't see I have seen any increase in Snapper numbers here, catching any is considered a bonus these days.

[billfisher]

Gees, I can't see I have seen any increase in Snapper numbers here, catching any is considered a bonus these days.

If you could define 'here' it might be more useful. If anywhere is overfished it should be off Sydney, but we have been having excellent reports:

Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/Compleat.Angler.Villawood/posts/pfbid0ZtYK8VjMRCTdbdY2r2tQWoMFLW9srWrWgkswbcB6483T kCSKo3cLRdPvqRN7Lwxl)

I looked at the 2018 stock assessment for NSW and it said snapper no's and size seem to be increasing,

[chris69]

If you could define 'here' it might be more useful. If anywhere is overfished it should be off Sydney, but we have been having excellent reports:

Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/Compleat.Angler.Villawood/posts/pfbid0ZtYK8VjMRCTdbdY2r2tQWoMFLW9srWrWgkswbcB6483T kCSKo3cLRdPvqRN7Lwxl)

I looked at the 2018 stock assessment for NSW and it said snapper no's and size seem to be increasing,

Are you saw there not qld snapper that went south for a holiday because our qld snapper have gone somewhere,I know your Jew from down there have moved north.

[chris69]

Would it not be better to pick one species a year and have a total no take and rotate the species every year after to help regeneration of stocks that way ,it’s taken decades for everyone to work out what’s going on so one species a year would be a good start to help.

[billfisher]

Are you saw there not qld snapper that went south for a holiday because our qld snapper have gone somewhere,I know your Jew from down there have moved north.

They seem to be doing well in Victoria too: https://www.vrfish.com.au/2022/07/26/strong-snapper-recruitment/

[chris69]

They seem to be doing well in Victoria too: https://www.vrfish.com.au/2022/07/26/strong-snapper-recruitment/

As I live in qld I really don’t care about how things are going in Victoria , but there snapper fishery was bad compared to what it was I think they even banned scallop dredging too help fix if, but they don’t grow that fast so where have they been hiding.

[Lovey80]

I wouldn't call it a failure. Rec fishing is open entry so with a growing population you have to consider that there are more participants. In any case some stocks appear to be increasing under current fisheries management. Plus fishing is like a mining exercise in the early stages of a fishery. It's inevitable and not a sign of failure that when they are fished down there will be more restrictions.

So it’s not hyperbole to suggest under current management tools that regulations will be ever increasing.

[disorderly]

They seem to be doing well in Victoria too: https://www.vrfish.com.au/2022/07/26/strong-snapper-recruitment/

They stuffed up in WA though ...

https://thewest.com.au/news/geraldton-guardian/snapper-and-dhufish-stocks-not-recovering-as-expected-ng-b882080045z

Catch limits were halved in 2010 under a 20 year grand plan to replenish sustainable levels..hasnt worked and its looking likely that bag limits will be halved again..

Likely they just used arbitrary numbers pulled from their asses under the guise of "science" and working groups or did a phone survey and extropolated, right...::)..

[Noelm]

As I live in qld I really don’t care about how things are going in Victoria , but there snapper fishery was bad compared to what it was I think they even banned scallop dredging too help fix if, but they don’t grow that fast so where have they been hiding.
That very statement is one of the issues that's plagued the rec sector forever and a day, "not my problem" it's everyone's problem, just because something doesn't directly affect you "right now" doesn't mean it's not a nation wide problem, or even a global problem.

[billfisher]

So it’s not hyperbole to suggest under current management tools that regulations will be ever increasing.

Well. I explained how that is lacking in logical basis in the quote highlighted. Your response sounds like the 'slippery slope' fallacy.

[Lovey80]

Well. I explained how that is lacking in logical basis in the quote highlighted. Your response sounds like the 'slippery slope' fallacy.

At one point you call it hyperbole in the next you say ever increasing populations make ever increasing restriction inevitable. Which one is it?

[billfisher]

At one point you call it hyperbole in the next you say ever increasing populations make ever increasing restriction inevitable. Which one is it?

I didn't say anything about 'ever' increasing restrictions (or 'ever' increasing population for that matter), and I just finished pointing out that a least some fish stocks appear to be increasing under current fisheries management.

[billfisher]

They stuffed up in WA though ...

https://thewest.com.au/news/geraldton-guardian/snapper-and-dhufish-stocks-not-recovering-as-expected-ng-b882080045z

Catch limits were halved in 2010 under a 20 year grand plan to replenish sustainable levels..hasnt worked and its looking likely that bag limits will be halved again..

Likely they just used arbitrary numbers pulled from their asses under the guise of "science" and working groups or did a phone survey and extropolated, right...::)..

The original restrictions stopped the depletion, but the stocks haven't bounced back as expected. The catch is set to be halved - not bag limits. The rec fishing body in WA actually supports the halving of the catch.

You word salad that is your second sentence makes little sense. The assessment would have been based on monitoring things like catch rates, size and age data.

[Lovey80]

I didn't say anything about 'ever' increasing restrictions (or 'ever' increasing population for that matter), and I just finished pointing out that a least some fish stocks appear to be increasing under current fisheries management.


I wouldn't call it a failure. Rec fishing is open entry so with a growing population you have to consider that there are more participants. ok you never actually said ‘ever’ increasing population. growing population, more participants. Same point you were making.


In any case some stocks appear to be increasing under current fisheries management.

I actually agree. I think many species are on the rise. I think many species have had a turn around and due to slow growth rates in some, we are too early to understand how big an impact previous regulations have had. What we do know is that Fisheries QLD are openly telling us that the previous management regimes ,THEY IMPLIMENTED, have not only NOT halted the decline in some species, they’ve actually become so bad that they are in serious trouble. In some aspects (Spanish as an example and I’m sure it’s the same across the board) their previous estimates are GROSSLY INACCURATE. An abject failure on their behalf by any reasonable assessment.

if you and I are correct, then why do we only ever see more restrictions?


Plus fishing is like a mining exercise in the early stages of a fishery. It's inevitable and not a sign of failure that when they are fished down there will be more restrictions.

Hang on early stages? We’ve been seeing constant management changes (all negative to catches/TAC for more than 40 years. If the fishery was managed well, why is it being fished down so heavily? Ether they’ve been doing their jobs well in the past or they haven’t. Why should we be so confident in the next round. but at least it ps here for longevity your comment about more restrictions. You’re kind of defeating your own arguments in the same paragraph.

or just to throw this out there. What if they’d nailed it over the past 40 years? Really. Would their relevance be required right now? Or maybe, just maybe “new models” were needed (which completely contradict their old models) to show their astute stewardship was needed even more than ever to justify their jobs?

[chris69]

That very statement is one of the issues that's plagued the rec sector forever and a day, "not my problem" it's everyone's problem, just because something doesn't directly affect you "right now" doesn't mean it's not a nation wide problem, or even a global problem.

The VIC fishery is a totally different fishery compared to QLD and this is what the chat is about the Qld fishery , there's no where in QLD were you can catch snapper in the shallows like VIC and yes its not my problem what happens in VIC i have no influence on what happens there and yes i don't care.

[billfisher]

The VIC fishery is a totally different fishery compared to QLD and this is what the chat is about the Qld fishery , there's no where in QLD were you can catch snapper in the shallows like VIC and yes its not my problem what happens in VIC i have no influence on what happens there and yes i don't care.

It's still relevant. And I mentioned coral trout on the GBR which has been ignored. The post I replied to said' he 'didn't know of any stock that needed ever increasing restrictions'. Obviously you don't need more restrictions if stocks are robust and increasing under current management.

[Noelm]

The VIC fishery is a totally different fishery compared to QLD and this is what the chat is about the Qld fishery , there's no where in QLD were you can catch snapper in the shallows like VIC and yes its not my problem what happens in VIC i have no influence on what happens there and yes i don't care.
I don't live in QLD, but, I care what goes on with wild fish stocks, it's everyone's "baby" and just to add, I have caught plenty of big Snapper in close to shore in shallow water off the Sunshine Coast, including one nice 10.5kg model, in about 5m of water. It's your prerogative to close your eyes to anywhere else, but, in the big picture, it's all linked together.

[chris69]

I don't live in QLD, but, I care what goes on with wild fish stocks, it's everyone's "baby" and just to add, I have caught plenty of big Snapper in close to shore in shallow water off the Sunshine Coast, including one nice 10.5kg model, in about 5m of water. It's your prerogative to close your eyes to anywhere else, but, in the big picture, it's all linked together.

Thats right it’s my prerogative so respect that instead of being a pain.

[Noelm]

Thats right it’s my prerogative so respect that instead of being a pain.
Are you joking? I just have a different view, doesn't make me wrong, or a pain, and to think I made an effort to start posting again and run into this shit....no thanks.

[Ducksnutz]

Are you joking? I just have a different view, doesn't make me wrong, or a pain, and to think I made an effort to start posting again and run into this shit....no thanks.
Seriously Noel,

get over yourself and go back to the Hull Truth….. I was once supportive of your contributions but now it’s clear you are not accepting of other’s opinions or view’s…

You should know better, opinions are like arseholes….. everyone’s got one and yours is no more important than others.

[TheGurn]

Imagine for a moment that other govt depts operated under the same hamstrung budgets and methodologies.

Main Roads & Transport.... No new roads or upgrades so a cap or reductions on car registrations.

Health.... No new hospitals or upgrades so a patient cap and restrictions on health conditions for admittance.

Sport & Recreation.... Sorry, but your local footy clubs have to close.

Social Services...... not viable

Add infinitum.

It seems every other dept has the capacity/budget to contribute and expand infrastructure/services as participation increases, yet Fisheries are hobbled and only appear to increase restrictions and reductions.
And yes I realize one is due to increased population (people), the other due to decreased population (fish).
Regardless, for most depts it seems participation (forecast or actual) is by far the major driver for 'improvement' in lieu of restrictions (perhaps excluding NPWS).

And should people numbers be declining like estimated fish numbers, would they not spend countless millions increasing immigration to reap the benefits?

Personally, I think Fisheries are way too far behind the eight ball to ever catch up, let alone get in front.

Just an overly simplistic thought after a few early beers.

Cheers

[billfisher]

Imagine for a moment that other govt depts operated under the same hamstrung budgets and methodologies.

Main Roads & Transport.... No new roads or upgrades so a cap or reductions on car registrations.

Health.... No new hospitals or upgrades so a patient cap and restrictions on health conditions for admittance.

Sport & Recreation.... Sorry, but your local footy clubs have to close.

Social Services...... not viable

Add infinitum.

It seems every other dept has the capacity/budget to contribute and expand infrastructure/services as participation increases, yet Fisheries are hobbled and only appear to increase restrictions and reductions.
And yes I realize one is due to increased population (people), the other due to decreased population (fish).
Regardless, for most depts it seems participation (forecast or actual) is by far the major driver for 'improvement' in lieu of restrictions (perhaps excluding NPWS).

And should people numbers be declining like estimated fish numbers, would they not spend countless millions increasing immigration to reap the benefits?

Personally, I think Fisheries are way too far behind the eight ball to ever catch up, let alone get in front.

Just an overly simplistic thought after a few early beers.

Cheers

I don't think it is a matter of throwing more money at it. In other word's it costs almost nothing to adjust bag limits, size limits, etc. Things like roads, schools, etc are a different case. Obviously there will be a bigger spend to cater for a growing population.

[TheGurn]

This fisheries management caper all seems overly complicated and any measurable results seem to take forever to establish.
It seems to my naive perspective that it is one of the few natural resources that we have the technology and information to fairly quickly replenish.
Just need the will and the dollars,

Cheers

[billfisher]

This fisheries management caper all seems overly complicated and any measurable results seem to take forever to establish.
It seems to my naive perspective that it is one of the few natural resources that we have the technology and information to fairly quickly replenish.
Just need the will and the dollars,

Cheers

Well, it looked like you were trying to make it more complicated - wanting to throw more money at it. We rely on their natural ability to replenish themselves - stocking with hatchery fish is not proven on a large scale for non - impoundment fish.

[TheGurn]

Well, it looked like you were trying to make it more complicated - wanting to throw more money at it. We rely on their natural ability to replenish themselves - the stocking with hatchery fish is not proven on a large scale for non - impoundment fish.

I'll admit my ignorance is abundant, but if artificial restocking has not been proven, does it necessarily follow that it has been proven to be 'ineffective' in all cases of species specific stock depletion?
If so, I willingly concede it is not worth further consideration. However I've noticed NSW fisheries are actively involved in restocking, albeit not govt funded. I personally doubt this is simply a PR move.

'Throwing money at it' does not necessarily equate to making it more complicated. It could just as easily make it less complicated and more effective.
We know which species are struggling. We know (approximately) our 'take" from that species. And we know (approximately) survival rates off offspring thru natural recruitment, or so I'm led to believe. We know spawning habits and locations. We know participation rates.
It follows in my simple mind that any artificial boost in recruitment for any struggling species, not necessarily restricted to fish, equal to or exceeding the perceived deficit would only be advantageous.

I've no idea if a concerted effort over any period of time for a particular species has been conducted and the results compared to current methods.
Has this been attempted in the real world? Perhaps it has. Or has it been a paper exercise focusing purely on the economic viability of current funding?
Or perhaps the NSW restocking program is just a PR move with no scientific justification.

It is undeniably less expensive to continue the eternal adjustments and restrictions and the 'wait and see' methods to determine how the various stocks respond, but in this day and age is it necessary to only stay on this track which hasn't always produced the desired result?

I'm not advocating removal of existing limits. At least in the short term. I'm suggesting an additional strategy that I consider is being overlooked simply by restrictive funding.
For heavens sake, we know which individual amino acids and salts trigger a response in the olfactory and gustatory receptors of individual fish species.
Surely, at that level of investigation, we should by now be aware of additional methods to enhance depleted stocks than are currently in use.

I believe the knowledge, research and capability are there. If not, it should be vigorously pursued.
And in my opinion if proven to have a positive influence, it should be funded and incorporated in the management strategies.

Cheers

[Lovey80]

Great post TheGurn. It’s certainly a better path forward than simply changing mathematic models every few years.