positive side of closures

[wayneoro]

35 yrs ago i owned a longline boat in auckland. we fished in the firth of thames half my gear was string line & trace rest string line with catgut trace we filled up 2-3 days [10 pence a lb for snapper gilled & gutted ] then came thr seine boats & pair trawlers after many years they wiped out the snapper now i was pleasure fishing same area but no fish then the nz govt bought in new restrictions now my son in law & family in auckland fish the firth and usually catch the limit its all about the end result guys

[Jeremy]

so why should recreational fishers have to cop restrictions as a result of commercial overfishing and greed? Or is the case of the GNS, spear gunners? Recreational fishing restrictions currently in place ensure the fishery is sustainable. There is no need for additional area closures, however banning of beam trawling and long lining would go a long way to conserving fish stocks.

Jeremy

[GBC]

Positive thoughts Wayneoro,
I agree the end result is important. We rec fishers in QLD could continue to believe that we place little or no strain on the current fish stocks, but that would 'head in the sand' stuff.
In the N.T. for example it is well known that rec fishers have in the past had a larger impact on barra than pros.
We are part of an expanding population, and I for one am happy to lose some of my 'historical' fishing areas in a bid to secure a sustainable fishery for amateurs and pros alike.
No legislation is going to keep everyone happy, and I now can't fish some areas I've fished all my life - Rooneys, Wide off 1770, Wolf rock etc. But if closures of the reef/Great sandy are done with parity (GSS in its current form is a debarcle), I am all for it. Bottom line is something had to be done, and there will allways be some more affected than others.
Last comment - hands up all who had shop bought local seafood over Christmas......

[baldyhead]

Quote from GBC

"In the N.T. for example it is well known that rec fishers have in the past had a larger impact on barra than pros."

Hey M8, how about backing that statement up with some real hard evidence please!

[Derek_Bullock]

Quote from GBC

"In the N.T. for example it is well known that rec fishers have in the past had a larger impact on barra than pros."

Hey M8, how about backing that statement up with some real hard evidence please!

Would like to see that as well seeing that below are the total size and possession limits in the NT


Derek


A person may not possess more than 30 fish or the equivalent of 30 fish whether the fish are whole, trunked, filleted, diced, minced or a combination thereof.

Species exempt from the general possession limit are:

Crabs and tropical rock lobsters;
Prawns;
Octopus, cuttlefish and squid;
Bait fish (mullet, whiting, garfish, pilchards, sardines, herrings);
Marine bream (Acanthopagrus sp.); and
Echinoderms (sea urchins and starfish).
What it means

The general possession limit enables each person to possess up to:

30 fish in total (including managed fin-fish).
In addition, each person may possess up to:

10 tropical rock lobsters;
10 mud crabs;
10 litres of molluscs; and
any exempt species.
Whilst these are the maximum possession limits, you should only take what you need.

Barramundi (Lates calcarifer)

5 possession limit per person (except Mary River Management Zone).
2 possession limit per person in the Mary River Management Zone.
55cm minimum size limit.

Black Jewfish (Protonibea diacanthus)

5 possession limit per person.

Narrow-barred Spanish Mackerel (Scomberomorus commerson)

5 possession limit per person.

Golden Snapper (Lutjanus johnii)

5 possession limit per person.

Mud Crab (Scylla serrata)

10 possession limit per person.
30 possession limit per boat with 3 or more people on board.
13cm minimum size limit for male mud crabs.
14cm minimum size limit for female mud crabs.

Tropical Rock Lobster (Panulirus sp.)

10 possession limit per person.
30 possession limit per boat with 3 or more people on board.

Molluscs

A person may not have in possession a volume of molluscs greater than 10 litres with shells intact.

[Jeremy]

I too would like to see the scientific studies they claim are the basis for these closures. For me, the point is the continual erosion of areas available to recreational fishers. If we do not make a stand, we will end up with few places left to fish, if fishing is even allowed at all in 10-20 years time. Another argument which I agree with is, one out all out - that includes divers and tourist operators.

Jeremy

[GES]

If there are to be any extra closures to fishing made in Moreton Bay, I hope that it is not like the fishing closure on the NW side of Peel Island.
That is; recreational fishers are out altogether but some professional fishing crews were given a permit to net there in the "closed" area.
I guess the reason for that decision was that the government may have had to pay some sort of compensation to the pros who traditionally netted the area prior to the closure and it was cheaper to let them continue.

Has anyone seen the length of the tunnel nets that are currently used by several professional fishing crews in Moreton Bay? It's a wonder to me that anything exists in the Bay with those things being used along the foreshores all the time. They are a massive length.

GES

[GBC]

Baldy/Derek,

http://www.fisheries.nt.gov.au/servlet/page?_pageid=160&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&_type=site&_fsiteid=196&_fid=302611&_fnavbarid=302870&_fnavbarsiteid=196&_fedit=0&_fmode=2&_fdisplaymode=1&_fcalledfrom=1&_fdisplayurl=

By my calcs rec fishers still harvest the same as if not more than pros, and they definitely catch more even with your current stated bag limits. This figure does not allow for the approx 6% of released fish which die - 6% of 332511 fish released (rec+guided) = another 19950 fish. Bottom line rec fishers take more barra.

The figures look big but the N.T. fishery is sustainable with the current pro/amateur take.
My original point stands - we amateurs have a significant impact on fish stocks, and blaming pros every time is not the answer, esp in SEQ.

P.S. I'm off camping/fishing at Minnie Water next week so don't think I'm ignorant if I don't make further replies till later on.
Happy new year all,

C.J.

[wayneoro]

bit more on what happened in nz within 3 yrs there was a big increase in snapper stocks [some pros claimed this was a natual cycle let us back ] stopped a lot of pro fishing that took the whole school or damaged ocean floor when i was 5 yrs old my bus stop was outside a greek fish shop where id get a 1p worth of scraps my mother would toss up between fish & chips for the family meal or a lg sack of crayfish same price i was so pissed times she went for the cray times are a changing guys smarter people then us are trying to get the mix right cheers

[finding_time]

Well put together wayneoro and GBC! I too have no problem with restrictions as long as they are based on hard scientific evidence not hearsay and misconception ( eg. the GNS ) and also that the same rules apply to both rec and pro fishos. If it is unsistainable for a type of fishing in one area and this is proved it shouldn't matter is you are a rec or pro fisherman.

Jeremy

There is no way they are going to ban all fishing, the economy benifits to highly for the revenue rec fishing genorates!
also i don't think that it will be to long before the divers are removed from these protected areas and when this happen no one will be saying i told you so louder than me as i was there when a certain person from the deptment of the enviroment was enlisting the dive groups to aid her in research. At that time i ask the question what would happen to these areas and kylie ( the certain person ) said she hope to have fishing banned and a no go area around the sites but of course divers would be allowed in. My response was " for how long" i believe the divers are being given a bit of time as a thankyou for there help but ultimately the dept of the enviroment dont want anyone at all in these areas.

Ian

Ps. i'm intersted to see jeremy's,dereck's and baldyheads response to GBC'c facts. You all called for them seems only right that you respond to them.

[Derek_Bullock]

Ps. i'm intersted to see jeremy's,dereck's and baldyheads response to GBC'c facts. You all called for them seems only right that you respond to them.

Did he quote "facts" or was he stating an opinion.

I to am in favor of closures if they are based on scientific facts. #Problem is that no-one seems to be able to produce them. #All I see are the greens and conservationists hell bent on 30% to 50% closures of our current fishing areas (75% already closed around the Cairns region) regardless of any recognised scientific facts.

I also wouldnt be fooled about your statement
There is no way they are going to ban all fishing

The conservationists and animal liberation groups are working on that to.


Derek

[finding_time]

Derek

the fishing industry pumps billions of dollars into the economy every year through tackle and bait sales , boat manufacture and engine sales , tourism ,advertising ,petrol and desiel sales plus many i haven't listed. It australia's favorite pass time there is no way in hell any politician is going to ban it! The damage to both his political career and to the countrys economy would be disasterous.

If the fishing party want to be taken seriously talking about total bans on fishing is not the way to do it.

Of course there are greenies out there that want it banned ,they would also like no more coal and uranium to be mined this is never going to happen either. Buy all means fight the good fight on closures and get real scientific evidence for there need but for the sake of your credibility leave the scare tactics out of it! ;)

Ian

Ps. i believe you asked GBC to produce FACTS that the rec fishos had more affects than the pro fishos if you follow the links and to the math i believe he has. ;D

[Derek_Bullock]

Finding Time

I am not a member of The Fishing Party. As regards scare tactics, check out the post on the Animal Rights Bill. #Even politicians are talking about it now and admitting that one of it's purposes is to stop recreational fishing.

Check with the fishing party and look at all the businesses in north Qld who have gone broke or out of business because of the 75% closures in the Cairns area.

Not scare tactics ............... facts.


Derek

[finding_time]

It will never happen derek the world is slow turnning against cr@p

[Derek_Bullock]

I think every fisho in the Cairns region would have said the same a couple of years ago. Now 75% of their favourite fishing areas are closed to fishing.


Derek

[finding_time]

I think your thread about Senator Macdonald supports my arguement very nicely dont you? If the democrates want something you can be sure that it is only representing the (very) loony left and will never be on the agender of either the major parties!

[Derek_Bullock]

Until the other parties want to swing a deal like they did with the GBRMP.


Derek

[GBC]

Did he quote "facts" or was he stating an opinion.
>:(

I'm upset Derek that as a moderator you didn't notice that I quoted nothing, just provided the link that you and others requested.
It would appear to me that unless some our so called rec fishing "advocates" start getting some basic info right, I for one don't want these people 'helping' me.
You guys are in a public forum, and spreading misinformation and bleating pro's suck just plays into your oponents hands. They read this too;I know 2 Directors of both DNR and DPI who are regulars here.
I actually worked voluntarily on part of the Sandy Straights RAP to try to get rec fishers a better deal around the top end of the straights. This plan was based on representative areas of sub sea flora/fauna which are unique to the area. At one stage the whole southern gutter system was included, not just rooneys.
I am not a government worker, nor an activist. If you must know, I'm a carpenter, rec fisher and ex pro fisher. Some areas will be locked up. If that means I have to travel further and work a bit harder to get a feed, knowing that my grandkids will know the same type of fishing, bring it on.
As I said earlier, don't underestimate the effect rec fishers have on target fish stocks.
C.J.

[Derek_Bullock]

I'm upset Derek that as a moderator you didn't notice that I quoted nothing, just provided the link that you and others requested.

My point precisely, and I did not dispute it and neither do I intend to. My comment "Did he quote "facts" or was he stating an opinion" was merely trying to state that.

I certainly dont hold all the answers and am merely a moderator on here to keep this section of the board going.

Thank you for posting the link.


Derek

[GBC]

Derek,

I don't understand the reply, but I get the sentiment. Cheers and no grudges from here.
C.J.

[kc]

CJ Makes a few good points and just by way of some input.

CJ while you and other (TFPQ included) worked towards some good outcomes in Hervey Bay and dutifully got our submissions lodged within the timeframes required it has now come to pass that a collective of conservation lobby groups have been working away, with the assistance of the state DEH and the GBRMPA, to lobby government for 33% green zoning in GSS. Regardless of wether you agree with this or any other levels of green zones it is irksome that the public and rec fishing community is given 1 timeline and the governments own department works with sectional interest groups on a different one.

If that means I have to travel further and work a bit harder to get a feed, knowing that my grandkids will know the same type of fishing, bring it on.
As I said earlier, don't underestimate the effect rec fishers have on target fish stocks.

The other thing you may not understand here is that with the closures, comes the propogander. You won't take your grandkids fishing because fishing is demonised to the point where it is no longer something kids want to do. You may still be able to, the actual fishing may be good but kids are being taught that fishing is bad for the environment, fisherman are destroying the reef etc......check out the "Reef Gaurdian" program currently being taught in our Northern schools.....very heavy.

While the EAP, in their zoning document talk glowingly about "enhanced recreational fishing opportunities" and how business will benifit, the facts of the matter are that after the zoning and the propogander campaign which follows...people stop fishing. The state Government DPI participation rate in recreational fishing numbers showed a drop off of up to 41% (Cairns). This is supported by the federally funded Hunt Report (now used as the basis for claims by effected businesses) and the KPMG economic impacts statement.

CJ, I share you views about protection of marine environment and particularly fish stocks. It is just that the more I dig the muckier and more politicised this all becomes to a point where the rezoning has little to do with environment and more to do with the grubby business of political deals.
I'm the same as you. Getting to a point in my life where I am starting to look towards grandkids and introducing them to the things in life that were special to me as a kid...sadely I fear that is not going to be an option if things continue as they are going.


As to the effects rec fishing are having on target species, I have some pretty detailed numbers and data but maybe you have some more you can share. We should never stop looking for the facts. Of issue however should not be the numbers but wether the numbers are sustainable. The fish harvested and fish farmed in the Meekong River alone are more than the entire combined commercial and recreational fishery of Australia. Take as example Coral Trout...near, dear and with plenty of facts....of available breeding biomass the combined recreational and commercial catch (before the new reduced quotas and bag limits) was 3%.................3 out of every 100...and yet the science tells us the breeding potentail of this stock could handle 25% and still be totally sustainable. Studies go on to talk about "spawning recruitment" and "available habitat" but in essence, in heavily fished areas with more "available habitat" trout numbers (juvenille) are actually much higher (up to double) than unfished areas.

If fish stocks or particular species are under unsustainable pressure, or even close...than by all means manage them.....you will find no-one who does not agree with the barra closed season and maximum size limits.......but this does not mean lock us out forever from 33% of our own waterways on the back of shabby or non existant science, just because of a political deal.

Regards

KC

[GBC]

K.C.
Thanks for taking the time for the excellent reply. Your point about sustainability is an excellent one, and I believe it echoes my sentiment from my first point. i.e. the biomass being taken from the N.T. is very large, but is still well within the sustainable guidelines. Having had first hand experience with the RAP process, I agree that the people in charge are not using science as a base, and generally have no expertise in this area, but rather come from a lobby/negotiating background. I have also previously referred to this and other processes currently being implemented as a debarcle; esp that special interest groups can still lobby after your ability to do so has been stymied.
Bottom line is that I had a beef with those who think that if pros are kicked out, then all will be good again. Not with you guys trying to negotiate positive outcomes for rec fishers in the face of what can only be described as idiocy - 2 hooks in an area which is also netted etc..... Not to mention the modus operandi used to count grey nurse sharks and the extrapolations made from this data.
I agree with the govt. that closures had to be made, however should qualify that, by saying I don't agree with the way it was done.

[tshort]

I may be getting bitter and twisted in my old age but I tend to ignore many statistics, impact statement, flora and fauna reports etc. these days. I believe the required result is realised, then the process works backwards until it matches the question. My opinion is that consultants are paid to deliver the answers clients want not the other way around, thats only natural if they want more work. I studied the information provided by the Gov. and put in a submition on the GSS, I also attended one of the Information session / meetings where I questioned one of the catch figures from the bar chart of a certain area as it had no reference in the legend and was significant in the equation. The representative could not supply the answer and said he'd get back to me which he did to advise that non of them could find out what the figure was representing however it was used in calculations. This comming from the people who worked on the project for 2 or more years and were then sent out to inform the concerned public?

[Gazza]

Closures cause Fishing to be concentrated ,and that's not good.....simple.
that's very,very different to OVER-exploitation being UN-sustainable.

[baldyhead]

Quote from GBC

"In the N.T. for example it is well known that rec fishers have in the past had a larger impact on barra than pros."

Hey M8, how about backing that statement up with some real hard evidence please!

Well I have read the info in the link and can find NO reference to back up the above claim.
If you find it please C&P it here. cheers baldy

[ian_cameron]

Even if it can be proved that the rec catch is as large as some claim we should also take into account how many voters went fishing in order to catch that many fish. Thousands of kilos of fish would relate to thousands of voters and tens of thousands likewise. The sustainable rescource levels should be shared equitably not just between the pro and rec sectors but between the numbers of voters who actually OWN the rescource. The fish stocks are OWNED by the people - voters - not the government to allocate as they see fit .

The Fishing Party is doing a great job but they need all of us to do our bit and the best way is to vote for those looking after our best interests and to very publicly vote against those who do otherwise.

Ian Cameron

[gif]

I keep hearing the argument that rec Fishing is worth billions an billions of dollars and the Govt would never ban it because it would wreck the economy.

That argument is misinformed and untrue

Rec Fishing is worth ONLY 1.8 billion. And that includes Motor vehicles and camping gear to go fishing.

So fishing is 0.00001 % of the economy. Stuff All!

And Rec fishing is a “hobby” and not an essential purchase like health.

So economists ( like me) can successfully argue - that if rec fishing is stopped the money is not “lost” to the economy - it will just be spent on something else: some other hobby.


So if you think fishing is safe because its too big – had better think again.

Gary

[baldyhead]

You are right Gary..thats why GBRMPA went rampant with the bloody green zones and to hell with the fishing population...the dollars meant very little in the equasion...AND the fisher folk would take on footy or golf...thats what scumbag beattie and kemp agreed on at the time.

[GBC]

Baldy,

Thread getting a bit stale now, but check the wildfish-barra harvest report 2004. (I can't cut from acrobat).


Commercial harvest - 678t caught @ an average of 6.5kg ea = roughly 100000 fish (and that's conservative)

Recreational harvested that amount = 100000.
Then add the fish tour harvest - 5377
and 10% of throwbacks dying - 43200 (400000 rec + 32000 tour released X 10%)

I must state again, I have no issue with this - the fishery is well and truly sustainable. But the point still stands that rec fisher have a significant impact on stocks.

Regards,

C.J.

[wayne_cook]

KC. top post. I wish I could express my views the way you've done, enjoyable to read.
We all want sustainability.Surely this can be achieved without shutdowns.
There's no point argueing about which group does the damage, stricter bag limits may be the option for both groups.
Nelson Bay area in NSW is in the gun now in the govt. devide & conquer mode. You can bet all the top spots will go leaving the flathead drifters happy.I am sure all the comments recieved by fisheries that don,t help there agenda are binned.

>:( >:(On a different note my daughter works on Lord Howe Is. so my son 17 went there on a spear fishing holiday. Wrong completly banned.
Possibly best fishing spot in NSW NO Pro fishing allowed fishermans paridise.
I contacted fisheries about the ban,comments were little oppistion to the draft so it was implemted.I said what draft.We pay fishing lic. & should recieve drafts, updates etc. by flyers in tackle stores.
This is one way the govt. is beating us, do a small area @ a time with little oppisition.For instance I didn't react when the Byron Bay area was acted upon, thought won,t affect me. How wrong I was every shutdown affects us all even though we don,t think so @ the time.

The next area for concern is the Central Coast Sydney area. If the poisions affecting the Sydney Harbour have been there for 40 years as some reports suggest I smell a rat with the release timing. IT will be alot easier to shut an area down due to poisions. Let the newspapers do the propaganda work for you.THE WHOLE area could be shut down & how could any individual argue to get it back.
We are fighting against a well oiled machine that gets a warm fuzzy feeling by kicking fisherman out.They have done it with shooters look up links to Martin Bryant & you will see where I,m coming from. We have to stick together & act as one.
Like I said KC I wish I had your writing ability to get all my thoughts out.
CONCERNED FISHERMAN <><.

[nonibbles]

The bulk of voters in Australia are concentrated in relatively small areas when considered agains the amount of coastline we have. The preferred tactic being employed is to target regional areas of relatively small populations, put the debate to the wider population who will have a NIMBY approach (=complacency). Not enough submissions get recieved and local ones generally are not weighted high enough in the argument or ignored. End result=preplanned outcome is carried. This is then used as a precedent to convert other like areas. Eventually the argument gets put into the backyard of the greater percentage of voters and it gets carried as just falling into line with the rest of the country.
All unjust arguments must be defeated at the source before the precedences gain momentum.
One thing Bob Hawke was right about and stated openly that still stands today is that "the greatest enemy facing Australia today is apathy."

[kc]

and it gets carried as just falling into line with the rest of the country

In all the time I have invested into this issue I have never seen it in quiet so much light. Very astute nonibbles....this is exactly it. Work at the margins until it becomes "accepted practise" and then use this "benchmark" for the high volume urban areas because it "works so well" elsewhere.

All the use of the Great Barrier Reef closures as a shining example to the rest of the country and the environmental "lobby" falling over themselves in self congradulation.

Times HAVE to change.

KC

[borisdog]

I spent a bit of time in the NT, from 85 to 87. This was before the buyback of professional barra licenses hit full swing. The fishing was absolutely appalling compared to what it is now - and rec effort is much much bigger now than it was. I would suggest the reason the rec fishing catch matches that of the pro catch is because there are very,very few pro barra fishermen now compared to times past in the Territory. It could also be the reason why the fishery is good ::). When I left the NT I spent the next 7 years in Kununurra - Another sensational barra fishery with very little pro effort and probably rec effort/catch exceeds pro catch. Anecdotal I know but co-incidence is a strange animal.

[nonibbles]

All the use of the Great Barrier Reef closures as a shining example to the rest of the country and the environmental "lobby" falling over themselves in self congradulation.

Times HAVE to change.

Another reason why I can't stand rap ;D

[PAYNE]

Looking forward to catching up at The Fishing Party meeting tomorrow night K.C. :)

I for one don't want to see our lifestyle eroded.