Snapper Stocks - Another View

[Pistol_P]

Where does it all end..??

Snapper closures......then why not just throw some more marine parks at us.

Like others have said...Its so rediculously impossible to gather accurate data and use capture rates etc as guidelines.
So many fisherman I met while working in the Tackle industry were using 80lb line with huge snapper leads on paternoster rigs....Sure they would knock off the odd fish but as we all know they certainly arent going to catch any where near as many as the educated bloke using burley and floatlining with bait or plastics.

So many fishermen miss out on catching fish through poor techniques and its NOT because the snapper are not there.
We have all been in the situatuion where the sounder is lit up with fish and they just wont bite.

So many other variables come into it.....Moon phase's,Tides,Water temps, Whether or not the person can anchor correctly etc etc....

All the data gathering and numbers that afre floating around are all Bull**** IMO

Pete

[indy]

You summed it up in one pete...

[TheRealAndy]

Where does it all end..??

Snapper closures......then why not just throw some more marine parks at us.

Like others have said...Its so rediculously impossible to gather accurate data and use capture rates etc as guidelines.
So many fisherman I met while working in the Tackle industry were using 80lb line with huge snapper leads on paternoster rigs....Sure they would knock off the odd fish but as we all know they certainly arent going to catch any where near as many as the educated bloke using burley and floatlining with bait or plastics.

So many fishermen miss out on catching fish through poor techniques and its NOT because the snapper are not there.
We have all been in the situatuion where the sounder is lit up with fish and they just wont bite.

So many other variables come into it.....Moon phase's,Tides,Water temps, Whether or not the person can anchor correctly etc etc....

All the data gathering and numbers that afre floating around are all Bull**** IMO

Pete

The difference between green zones and RRFF review is simple. Green zones were a vote grab, RRFF review is driven by the industry.

Everyone here dismisses the science 'In their opinion". Well opinion makes great green science, it doesn't help sustain our fisheries.

[Lovey80]

The difference between green zones and RRFF review is simple. Green zones were a vote grab, RRFF review is driven by the industry.

Everyone here dismisses the science 'In their opinion". Well opinion makes great green science, it doesn't help sustain our fisheries.

It's not an industry decision at all! And if you want to call that "industry" it at a guess must be about 5% of the SEQ "industry" that's targets snapper. Just a bunch of lazy GC charter ops looking after themselves.

Then an assessment on Biomass. Only A god like being could come close to knowing what those numbers are. Because this is like some voodoo numbers modeling game that they can pluck from anywhere "garbage in garbage out"

Then some scientists working off those numbers, deciding that on another set of numbers-Rec Take ( even these numbers suggest under 'independent review') are highly questionable, that traditional size and bag limit changes will not be enough to effect sufficient change.

ok so the review acknowledges that the Rec Take numbers are highly questionable. Right.? Any arguments there?

What if? Just what if? The SEQ Rec Take is say HALF of what the dodgy science is saying. Then because those numbers are super questionable the percentage of the Rec Take that are between 35 and 40cm is say 40-50% annually?????

Regardless if they have the Biomass figures right or not, Regardless if the make ALL Snapper fishing, line only, they still undoubtedly have the Rec Take figures wrong!

If the Rec Take figure after proper data collection says that average over 5 years is only 270t do we still need to reduce the Rec Take by 40%? The target now based on a 400+t Take is 260t so does that mean we only need to reduce by 10t to get under the target?

More importantly let's assume for a bleeting second the rec take is 400t and after proper data collection they find that in fact 140+t come from 35-40cm fish????? Will making the size limit 40cm not reduce the Rec Take by around 40%????

Jim Groves is resting on his laurels that the independent reviews say the Stock Assessment on Biomass is accurate. Fisheries only want to Restrict the Rec Take but he has no foundation to stand on because the only options his scientists can rely on to reduce the Rec Take are based on totally flawed data of what the Rec Take( same Reviews support this) actually is!

Just because you have the Biomass right ( not that I am saying for 1 second it is right) doesn't mean you have the right tools to improve the Biomass by targeting the Largest $$$$$$ value sector and lowest political influence sector until you know much more precisely what effect that sector is having on the Biomass.

Wether the Assessment is right or not doesn't matter Andy. From the review of the assessment they know half the job is dodgy. Wether or not Snapper need protection is quite largely irrelevant because the 4 options on the table do not represent a comprehensive list to target properly the Sector that is "deemed" the largest effect on the original Biomass Assessment.

Let's go back to the drawing board after we find out what the Rec Take is, then start a discussion on what needs to be regulated on the Sector.

[TheRealAndy]

It's not an industry decision at all! And if you want to call that "industry" it at a guess must be about 5% of the SEQ "industry" that's targets snapper. Just a bunch of lazy GC charter ops looking after themselves.

I said industry driven, not industry descision.

Then an assessment on Biomass. Only A god like being could come close to knowing what those numbers are. Because this is like some voodoo numbers modeling game that they can pluck from anywhere "garbage in garbage out"

Then some scientists working off those numbers, deciding that on another set of numbers-Rec Take ( even these numbers suggest under 'independent review') are highly questionable, that traditional size and bag limit changes will not be enough to effect sufficient change.

ok so the review acknowledges that the Rec Take numbers are highly questionable. Right.? Any arguments there?

What if? Just what if? The SEQ Rec Take is say HALF of what the dodgy science is saying. Then because those numbers are super questionable the percentage of the Rec Take that are between 35 and 40cm is say 40-50% annually?????

And what if the rec take actaully IS what they say? So far we have some modelling to suggest this is the case, but nothing to suggest otherwise.

Regardless if they have the Biomass figures right or not, Regardless if the make ALL Snapper fishing, line only, they still undoubtedly have the Rec Take figures wrong!

If the Rec Take figure after proper data collection says that average over 5 years is only 270t do we still need to reduce the Rec Take by 40%? The target now based on a 400+t Take is 260t so does that mean we only need to reduce by 10t to get under the target?

More importantly let's assume for a bleeting second the rec take is 400t and after proper data collection they find that in fact 140+t come from 35-40cm fish????? Will making the size limit 40cm not reduce the Rec Take by around 40%????

Jim Groves is resting on his laurels that the independent reviews say the Stock Assessment on Biomass is accurate. Fisheries only want to Restrict the Rec Take but he has no foundation to stand on because the only options his scientists can rely on to reduce the Rec Take are based on totally flawed data of what the Rec Take( same Reviews support this) actually is!

Just because you have the Biomass right ( not that I am saying for 1 second it is right) doesn't mean you have the right tools to improve the Biomass by targeting the Largest $$$$$$ value sector and lowest political influence sector until you know much more precisely what effect that sector is having on the Biomass.

Wether the Assessment is right or not doesn't matter Andy. From the review of the assessment they know half the job is dodgy. Wether or not Snapper need protection is quite largely irrelevant because the 4 options on the table do not represent a comprehensive list to target properly the Sector that is "deemed" the largest effect on the original Biomass Assessment.

Let's go back to the drawing board after we find out what the Rec Take is, then start a discussion on what needs to be regulated on the Sector.

For the record, the review of the 2009 paper does not say the modeling is wrong, it just reiterates what the authors have already said about uncertainty. And uncertainty is a fact of life to the science community.

But I am flogging a dead horse here. You should be the scientist Chris, you know better than they do.

[Lovey80]

I said industry driven, not industry descision.


Nice side step but my point is stil very valid

And what if the rec take actaully IS what they say? So far we have some modelling to suggest this is the case, but nothing to suggest otherwise.

if the modelling turns out to be right then so be it, at least the level uncertainty will have been removed and we can move forward, hell even an anonymous bloke called Pinhead and a few others banged together some 'models' with about the same degree of error. Just because a model is done doesn't mean Its right. When is the penny going to drop? The model unarguably had crap data going in one side Andy!





For the record, the review of the 2009 paper does not say the modeling is wrong, it just reiterates what the authors have already said about uncertainty. And uncertainty is a fact of life to the science community.

But I am flogging a dead horse here. You should be the scientist Chris, you know better than they do.

Mate you will always be flogging a dead horse when you support an argument that is potentially going to make huge impacts on peoples lives.......... On the grounds of "but they have a model what have you got"?

[TheRealAndy]

Mate you will always be flogging a dead horse when you support an argument that is potentially going to make huge impacts on peoples lives.......... On the grounds of "but they have a model what have you got"?

And if the snapper are fished to extinction, how much impact will that have on peoples lives?


The model is globally accepted by the scientific community. I would rather err on the side of caution until we actually know what is really going on. A 6 week closure is not going to kill me, and I am sure the rest of the rec community can find another species to fish in that small time frame.

[Lovey80]

Precautionary principle again hey. I though you hated that? Extinction is a pretty alarmist call there Andy your sounding very PEWish every day.

6 weeks? What about 4 months? That's what they really want isn't it? Give us 3 other options that are stacked against Rec Anglers to make us chose the original 4 months?

It's also not going to hurt you because you rarely fish for Snapper. Maybe if you did more you would probably not be making those alarmist statements.

[TheRealAndy]

Precautionary principle again hey. I though you hated that? Extinction is a pretty alarmist call there Andy your sounding very PEWish every day.

6 weeks? What about 4 months? That's what they really want isn't it? Give us 3 other options that are stacked against Rec Anglers to make us chose the original 4 months?

It's also not going to hurt you because you rarely fish for Snapper. Maybe if you did more you would probably not be making those alarmist statements.

I like the way you keep referring me back to being like PEW, and making jibes about religious theory. I suggest you read up on the precautionary principle and scientific concensus before you start accusing me of supporting it.

BTW. I do fish for snapper... A seasonal increase does not prove there is not an issue. Remeber, DPI have commercial data going back a long way.

[NAGG]

It's also not going to hurt you because you rarely fish for Snapper. Maybe if you did more you would probably not be making those alarmist statements.

And that is the problem with this ....... When it directly effects you - It is very hard to accept . People will continually question anything that is presented to them...... unless it is blindingly obvious and definative.

Chris

[brisbane_boy]

................

[Lovey80]

Mate I made the religious comments because of your Athiest thread and your seemingly backflip in attitude but it was mostly tounge in cheek.

BTW on the religion thing I support your point of view.

Remember that green zones were able to be pushed based on an International agreement of a min of 30% that we signed. Just because the modeling is internationaly doesn't mean it's right. Lots of GW alarmists use the "internationally recognised by the scientific community" argument also. Is that enough for us to cripple the economy also??????

I would not ever base an argument on these types on a seasonal catch. That flys in the face of what I am trying to achieve by arguing on here.

And that's exactly the point I am making. Doing a half assed catch survey every 5 years achieves pretty much nothing. Taking phone polls in the middle of one of our longest droughts achieves even less.

Let's implement a system that is far more comprehensive in collection data from the largest stake holder. And if you are going to implement a "just in case" precautionary measure make one that will have obvious positive effects ( size in crease ) that also allows people to keep fishing ( all supporting industries like tackle shops don't get effected and if the solid data reveals further measures are required then so be it.

I don't think I am being unreasonable in asking this?

[Lovey80]

And that is the problem with this ....... When it directly effects you - It is very hard to accept . People will continually question anything that is presented to them...... unless it is blindingly obvious and definative.

Chris

You took my point the wrong way Chris. I was trying to point out that any one that fishes for Snapper regularly ( other than the same marks day in day out on the gold coast) would never even suggest that " extinction " is on the cards. And certainly not in the next 10-20 years based on our current methods. So being an alarmist and shouting the sky is falling achieves nothing for anyone.

[Big Deez]

Andy, prawn trawlers kill more snapper than rec anglers take this number will probably rise further if rec anglers take restrictions. fisheries have not even put that little issue on the table for discussion.

its not a conservation issue at all in the eyes of fisheries.

Although I don't totally agree with this statement, given the significant decrease in otter trawl effort in the last ten years, the number of snapper caught by trawlers is on the decrease and is decreasing every year. Also, only very small snapper are caught by trawlers working in Moreton Bay and, at this size, there are literally millions of them swimming around and natural mortality is high as well.

Cost of fuel, lower prices paid due to imports, etc are having a profound effect on trawling so you will get your wish soon and there won't be any trawlers in MB.

[peterbo3]

My bitch with the science, which seems to be shared by everyone opposing these closures, is that Fisheries have done no objective measuring of snapper stocks.
In NSW fish traps have been used for years to harvest snapper. Why can't Fisheries deploy traps off Moreton, Stradbroke, Gold & Sunshine Coasts to actually catch fish in the areas where they are supposedly under pressure. A real time sample of live fish in their habitat using equipment that has been around for decades. Put a temporary exclusion zone around the trap whilst it is in use. Using a number of locations will provide some legitimate information which may actually be useful.
The traps may need to be tarted up with cameras to record activity, adjustable time entrances of various sizes to separate fish & decent framing to keep out the sharks but the experts at Fisheries should be able to do the fine tuning. Winch them up slowly to avoid barotrauma & count/tag them beside the research boat. Which research boat you say?? The big alloy boat "Tom Marshall" that lives over at Scarborough next to the boat ramp might be OK. It has a gallows & a large hyd winch. Or "Gwendoline May" which is an 18M steel former trawler.