Charter Operators

[PinHead]

I had heard several rumours but was uncertain..was going to the shed this morning and on Nugget's show he raised the issue.

It appears that charter operators who are members of Marine Qld will be permitted to keep fish eg amberjack, mahi mahi and kingfish that are actually undersize by the regulations.

Their claims are that their businesses will suffer under the new regulations.

How would this affect the client. Catches a 74cm AJ...fisheries ask to see the catch as he is leaving the marina..undersize fish ???

Why is the Govt being so selective..apparently this only applies to operators who are member of Marine Qld...why not all operators.

IMO I would not even consider going with these operators who seem to not want to play by the regualtions that apply to everyone else. Sure seems like a good way for MQ to increase membership also. And who in Fisheries Dept approved this ?

So many questions...and the answers don't look too good to me.

If these new size limits are detrimental to the charter operators, what about the pros..why can't they get the same leeway...their livelihood depends on it also.

[dayoo]

I had heard several rumours but was uncertain..was going to the shed this morning and on Nugget's show he raised the issue.

It appears that charter operators who are members of Marine Qld will be permitted to keep fish eg amberjack, mahi mahi and kingfish that are actually undersize by the regulations.

Their claims are that their businesses will suffer under the new regulations.

How would this affect the client. Catches a 74cm AJ...fisheries ask to see the catch as he is leaving the marina..undersize fish ???

Why is the Govt being so selective..apparently this only applies to operators who are member of Marine Qld...why not all operators.

IMO I would not even consider going with these operators who seem to not want to play by the regualtions that apply to everyone else. Sure seems like a good way for MQ to increase membership also. And who in Fisheries Dept approved this ?

So many questions...and the answers don't look too good to me.

If these new size limits are detrimental to the charter operators, what about the pros..why can't they get the same leeway...their livelihood depends on it also.

Marine Queensland have a charter rep on the RRFF working group and mention was made about six months ago that they did not agree with the size limits on the species you mention. All the other reps (including recreational) stated that everyone should be bound by the regulatory size limits.

I know that there have been meetings between the two charter Groups (Marine Qld and the Gold Coast lobby) and Fisheries regarding monitoring of the RRFF proposals and I guess all will be revealed at the RRFF meeting on 11 September. The recreational reps will be having our say and the charter guys will be reminded that it is recreational anglers who pay to go fishing on charter boats.

Cheers
Barry

[Nugget]

Greg is correct.
Charter operators that are a member of Marine Qld (used to be BIAQ) have a card they carry and show Fisheries that gives them an exeption to the min size regulations on amberjack, kingfish and mahi mahi.

I understand the reasoning behind this - the new min size on these species would take a devistating blow to their client's catch.
It also means that in order to put their clients on fish, they are forced to target more delicate species like snapper.

I also understand Marine Qld doing their best (and succeeding) brokering this arrangement for its members.

It is my opinion that this was agreed to by Fisheries for two reasons.
1 - they were looking at masive compensation payout to charter operators becuase of lost business under the new min size limits.

2 - To retract / amend regulations on these species would have been an embarassment to the Minister as they had just been forced to put a holt on new crab pot regulations.

I said on air that it was a bit like members of the Ford club having a card they show that allows them to speed - but only members of th Ford club can get the card.

Charter operators that are not members of Marine Qld are very angry.

What do you think - fair or unfair?

Nugget ><>

[PinHead]

"I understand the reasoning behind this - the new min size on these species would take a devistating blow to their client's catch."

Can't they find new territory to catch fish from...and...if they keep catching undersize fish..what will happen to the future of these species..short term benefit for some and long term detriment for all could be a distinct possibility.

Payouts due to lost business? Are they serious? How many other businesses get affected by Govt legislation without any form of compensation...almost every industry at some time. Time to alter their business practice to comply or change business.

I do not think it is fair at all...the fish stocks are owned by all...and regulations should apply to all...I do not believe there should be any relaxation of size limits UNLESS they apply to everyone.

[Far side]

Why do we have size limits?

In Queensland, there are limits on the size of fish that can be legally taken for many species. There are minimum size limits and also some maximum size limits.
Size limits are typically based on biological research into each species´ reproductive cycles. Minimum size limits generally allow fish to spawn at least once and contribute to the population before they are taken.
However, in some species larger individuals contribute more to the population, which is why maximum size limits apply. For example, most barramundi begin their lives as males and later, as they grow larger, become females. A maximum size limit is applied to protect large females and to allow them to spawn.
Back to top
Why do we have bag limits?

A bag limit is the number of fish that one person can legally take and keep. These limits serve several purposes. They:

• conserve heavily-exploited species
• conserve species that are susceptible to capture
• share the catch more equitably among anglers
• reduce the illegal marketing of fish
• send out a message promoting ethical and responsible behaviour when using a limited natural resource.

Seems to me that there are rules for us and rules for them

[lethal098]

this is true, i was with John Gooding a few weeks ago and yeah he has permit to take ajs at the old size, personally i think it should be the same for all anglers not just the guys that make a living out of it. cheers Lee

[Jeremy]

An an angler and a scientist, I would like to believe that there is some sound science and logic behind the selection of minimum size and bag limits, probably based on the size of the biomass, annual take, breeding rate and age etc etc.

If that is the case, and it was found eg that 75cm and 2 fish (I think that is correct for AJs) was required to maintain a sustainable fishery, THEN WHY THE HELL CAN SOME TAKE SMALLER THAN THIS.

That stinks big time. Double standard and undermines the science which one would hope the regs are based on.

Jeremy

[Nugget]

That stinks big time. Double standard and undermines the science which one would hope the regs are based on.
Jeremy

And if the bag and size limits were NOT based on scientific evidence, but instead implemented for political reasons?

I don't know if that is the case but it does bring those that are manageing the fishery under the microscope.

[SWANO1]

Gday Dave

And if the bag and size limits were NOT based on scientific evidence, but instead implemented for political reasons?

Think your on the right track , this will only create more division amongst our(rec/pro/charter) ranks ,giving the greens more ammo for the next round of closures and size/bag reviews .

i personally think that if a charter operator is not good enough to find you legal size fish without useing this then he maybe should be looking in the classifieds for a new job , there are a lot of talented charter operators out there that cringe at the thought of taking UNDERSIZE FISH but there are also cattle crates that jump at the chance to get into a school of 52cm kingies so their 12 punters can cover the decks in the blood of 24 ytk's .

after all doesn't the saying "BAD DAYS FISHING BEATS A GOOD DAY AT WORK" mean anything anymore as you have to take the fishless days on the chin and hope to do better next time as most of us would agree.

cheers swano

[Hell Boy]

i don't like Double standards !!!!!! and i agree it makes a joke out of the size limits

does anyone know how long has this been in place????

[outsiderskip]

only been in place for few weeks
and pros cannot the undersize fish either only charter operators

pete

[bondy99]

I also studied marine biology and most of these scientists don't go out into the real world. One would have to take quite a few specimens of fish (over a 100) within any given area to come up with data to make a statement. Also, a computer based models and predictions are bias.

Statistics can also be misleading and at times these statistics can be manipulated to suit the agenda. An extreme greenie will always be an extreme greenie irrespective and regardless of any data that would contradict their beliefs.

Fisheries managers rely upon case studies, data would need to be compiled over a lengthy time period, i.e. greater than a 3 years to give any real data.

Fish growth is influenced by seasonal temps, food availability, salinity etc, etc. Studies of roe of these fish can also provide some information as to what stage of sexual growth they are at...eg. Stage 1,2, 3 or 4 together with their measurements at each stage.

Now that's the way how it should be done, not a half hearted approach. I'll have a lot of scientists who would argue differently.

That's my spin....If I'm paying $200.00 on a charter then shit yeah, I'd also want to make sure I get a decent catch.

Mahi Mahi has no size limit or bag limit in the past as they are prolific breeders and they grow rapidly. Studies in Hawaii and other parts of the world support this view. So I don't know what ###### decided to change the regulations for this one for?

Peter

[grahams]

We operate 2 charter boats out of Yeppoon. Before the latest size/bag limits on Aj's were introduced we had a limit of 2 per angler. We often run into big schools of AJ"s in the 600 to 800mm range.

3 weeks ago we did a jigging trip and caught 35 AJ's in this size range..NONE were kept. I think we kept 2 Golden Trevally and a Mack tuna for bait out of about 50 fish, between 7 anglers (most total novices).
A charter should be a fishing EXPERIENCE not measured by kilos.
We also ran into a huge school of Nannygai 2 weeks ago. With 6 guest and 2 crew our "entitlement" was 72 Nannies, at 7kg each thats half a ton of nannies..what a waste. All on board agreed to stop at 25, we had to wait for 1 guy to catch his second.

I almost think it should work in reverse (lower limits for Charters) as Charter boats can do a lot of damage to schooling fish like AJ's and Nannies.

My only beef is getting dogged by idiots that subsequently hoover a place that we might have been touching lightly once or twice a year.
That's why I also support green zones (in principle)

I am sure many of your SEQ charter operators would feel the same. We need the fish to be there next year and many years after that...

Maybe I'm just strange.

[Scott nthQld]

Charter operator should be subject to the same size limits as the rest of us. Keep in mind that these now undersized fish are brought aboard alive, on the end of a fishing line, unlike a lot of commercial fishing operations, where the catch is usually dead or dying.

What good for the goose should be whats good for the gander. Double standards will only creat confusion and further split the 3 stakeholder groups, obviously making it easier for the zealots to get their way because the fishing voice will be split into 3 smaller voices rather than one larger one.

Grahams, Whilst I do agree that a charter with sometimes upto 20 anglers (depending on the size of the operation) can do a lot of damage to schooling fish, the same principle should apply, whats good for one group, should be good for the other, it would be hypocritical of me and anyone else that shares my above opinion to say otherwise, if the size limits are to be the same across the board, so should the possession limits. I applaud your operation's attitude to limit your kill, but you are not only doing it for the sake of the fishery, but for your business interests as well, any good operator would be doing the same, in fact I have been on one in particular that regularly does this, they might pull up on a patch of nannies wait for everyone to catch a couple of fish each and move on to the next spot where they would do the same. Also keep in mind that even though you have 8 POB (6 customers and 2 crew as you said), unless the crew were going to keep their quota, your customers can still only leave with 9 nannies each, so in theory, yes you could keep 72 nannies, but when it comes time to go home your customers can only legally take 48 between them, which is still a shiteload of fish by anyones standards.

[grahams]

Hi Scott,
Yes important point, bag limits are in posession per person. So 6 fishers could only take home 9 each (54), skipper and deckie can take fish if they wish. The numbers are just too big, a lot of dead fish. What I was getting at was 3 guys in tinnie taking 9 each is only 27, 20 guys lined up down the rail could take 180!!.

But you are right, it would be very difficult to actually limit the charter guys, as you pointed out hopefully sensible operators try to look after the fish stocks.

Do you know if the relaxation on AJ's etc is only on size? or size and bag limits?