Snapper RIS. Please explain ?

[Lucky_Phill]

.
.
><> ><> ><>



After attending meetings of the RRFF RIS consultation process it occurs to me that in general, all people want to do is lambaste the Queensland DPI&F for their efforts so far.

There have been many, many questions raised and statements made, but guess what…………. NOT ONE PERSON HAS STOOD UP AND OFFERED AN ALTERNATIVE.


The staff attempting to manage the RRFF have been given directives to achieve a goal or outcome they , in most peoples opinion , are deemed to be, predetermined. The powers that be know we are going to rant and rave about loss of fishing places, ability etc, but they also know we will NOT offer alternatives, as they rightly know, we will simply ask the questions and make the statements and NOT provide constructive criticism.

This RRFF review has been going on for over 18 months and the working group reps from the rec side have spent their own money and more importantly many, many hours of their own time putting forward ideas based on their experience and input from rec fishos they associate with and those here on Ausfish.

Part of the reason Ausfish was chosen to get a rep from was because of its fishermen network. A huge cross section of fishos from far and wide, but in the main, Queensland based.

The baseline data used in DPI&F modeling IS the best they have. You cannot change the past, it is what it is. If you believe it is not adequate or sufficient, WHAT have you done to improve it ? IT IS YOUR FISHERY…… !!!!!!!!

ALL that data modeling can be accessed from the DPI&F website, but what is the use of looking at it… ? It is past, history, old and for what it is worth, redundant.

There are other modeling structures out there and they are in the hands of private organizations, but they also can only input what data they have, albeit, better data than Fisheries.

This is why I feel it imperative that ANY option submitted to the Minster, MUST contain some form of data collection on behalf of Recreational anglers and the Snapper stock.

Let’s be PRO-ACTIVE and not go down the re-active path. Guys and gals… this is your opportunity to attain stewardship of your fishery. If you feel as many do, that it would be banging your head against a brick wall, so be it, but I will look back at the lumps and bumps on my forehead and say, “ at least I tried “.

Look back now over the last 18 months of your fishing. Work out how many hours you spent on it.. including repairs to rods and reels , tackle shopping, internet forum viewing, boat maintenance, etc etc and then divide those hours by 180. Then spend the answer ( in minutes or hours ) writing to DPI&F with YOUR proposals, YOUR input, YOUR ideas. Is that too much to ask ?


I will provide contact details for those willing to take up that offer.


Cheers phill
.
.
.
.
.
.

[dayoo]

Thanks Phill,

I believe that a final meeting of the snapper working group will be held before any Cabinet submission is drafted and we may have an opportunity to submit an alternative option.

I understand that financing any alternative option is the main challenge but I think that Fisheries will move towards a General Fishing Licence or a Offshore saltwater licence within the next 12 months. The licence would provide for the regular angler with a yearly fee of around $25 and a fee of around $5 for the occasional angler similar to NSW.

Any alternative option must include a more accurate method of collecting catch data from the recreational angler.

My personal preference is for the following option 5 for recreational anglers.

• A notional snapper TAC of 260 tonnes.
• Vessel based RRFF permit.
• Mandatory logbook or catch card recording number and size of all snapper, pearl perch and Trag caught. (Skipper is responsible for its completion)
• Biennial snapper catch and effort survey from data collected.

IF after reviewing the first biennial snapper catch and effort survey it is found that the recreational sector is exceeding the notional TAC of 260 tonnes then further limitations may be considered (e.g. In possession limit of 5 snapper with only 2 over 70cm)

Cheers
Barry

[rando]

The following is a letter i wrote to Tim Nicholls the member for Clayfield.

Hi Tim.
My apologies, I was unable to attend last nights meeting at Wynnum, I had forgotten that my wife had a meeting to attend. I will now try to attend the meeting at Victoria Point.
Tim here are the points I discussed with you yesterday.

1.The Fisheries & EPA have both published reports stateing that the major threat to marine populations is habitat destuction and pollution.
One recent report catorgorized recreational fishing impact as "negligable''.
I am sorry I can't give you chapter and verse on that report but I seem to remember is was an EPA report.
Very little effort or funds are being directed to counteract these major threats.

2 Most rec fishers support efforts to support sustainability but are angered by the lack of accurate scientific support for mooted changes to regulations .IE Green zones placed without regard to the effect on the stakeholders, The Moreton Bay Access Alliance provided the government with a professionlly produced alternative plan for green zones that achieved all the goals of conservation without the disruption the current plan produces but were ignored.

3 Successive governments have relied solely on resticting access to fisheries resource as a management tool, without exploring alternative measures.

4. While controlling access to the resource is an important tool it can only result in a process of manageing the remnant populations and inevitably leads to tighter restrictions and higher costs for all stakeholders.

5 A better management model would be to invest in replenishing populations. Using the DPI fish hatchery to supplement wild recruitment.This process does not require long grow out periods to fingerling stage or larger, rather, get the "hatch" to a size that gives them a somewhat better chance of survival than wild spawned fish that are exposed to all the hazards of the environment.I have no science to support my theory but I envisage a couple of centremetres.And many millions of such individuals of all the popular target species.

There will of course be people who say this will have an unknown effect and may adversly affect populations.My feeling on this is if the fish are released as small individuals they join the food chain close to the bottom and will be preyed on by anything that is larger.Successful individuals will go on to breed, unsuccessful ones will enhance the breeding potential of the predator.
Remember in the marine environment everything eats everything else if they get the chance.

A couple of areas of consideration.
Commercial harvest of some species.For instance for several years there has been a trial in the Tweed, Ricmond & Clarence rivers of stocking Jewfish in these open systems.I have seen reports of professional fishermen taking larger than normal schools of jewfish the season after the trials started.This to me indicates the process is a success, namely more fish.
No one can catch all the fish all the time therefore larger stocking efforts over longer periods must see populations grow and 'more fish' becomes "more fish for everyone."
The species most at risk here are the "beach siene haul " species, Tailor & Mullet & Jewfish.A simple tool to address this would be an additional charge levied against the catch, the funds directed to paying for larger releases of the target species.

The beach siene fishers for tailor & mullet need to be carefully managed. The fish they target are "Spawning Aggregations" as such the potential to suddenly change population dynamics exist if a couple of poor recruitment years were to occur.Tailor in particular appear to be a fully fished resource.
Perhaps there is an opportunity to utilise the knowledge these people have in regard to their fishery in bringing the process of stocking open systems to bear.

Tim, pursuing these aims will lead eventually to a better fising experience for recreational fishers which in turn will enhace tourism, two major sources of income and employment to government. It will lead to better commercial fishing returns, again a win win, more fresher cheaper fish on the market.
Look to the Northern Territory to see the results of enhancing the fishing experience.The attraction generated by the opportunity to catch more & bigger fish is worldwide.

Tim I know its not your portfolio but please help us by manageing the fisheries in a positive way.The culture within the fisheries dept is currently antagonistic towards the recreational sector which is the major stakeholder in both number and financial terms. We are sick of being screwed and I know I will definately vote for a party that gives us the support an industry the size of rec-fishing deserves I suspect many others feel the same .

Kind Regards
Rob Anderson




Reply

Forward
















|





z Privacy Policy - Google Home

[Lucky_Phill]

Thanks Rob,

Doesn't take much to do something positive.

That report you eluded to is the 2008 Stock Assessment.

Wild Stocking has been mentioned several times at meetings and it was also discussed some 18 months ago at the start of the review of the RRFF. At the time, a Southern Fisheries scientist stated that " wild stocking was not viable at this time ". To me, that meant the department didn't have funds to proceed.

Thanks Barry,

I believe you are on the money.

Big issue will be rec anglers filling out log books accurately. Maybe if those books were to be first sent to an " independent " organisation for processing, we might feel safer in our record keeping. And of course.... NO permit fees.


Cheers Phill
.
.
.
.
.
.

[FNQCairns]

Take a recreational leaf out of the GBR RAP zoning consultation process and then do the complete opposite.

All credibility and solid footing is lost when you move forward within their alternatives.

If any alternative is wrong because the current status quo is right or the best it gets (think this is understood?)and you stick to that line you can then win now or with the most solid option at a later date.

The GBR recreational fishing groups/whatever screwed us all over near forever by dumbing down to governments level to play the game with their corrupt umpires and by their rules...no hope from that moment onward and there certainly was not. history proved it, no matter how easily foretold by some.

You blokes did the same with the moreton bay green zones, now you have no credible legs to stand on as a direct result.

Imagine the outcome of WW2 if we said yeah it's ok...just a couple changes is all we want the it's sweet YO! all or nothing IMHO otherwise you blokes may as well just give up now for any future.

We anglers have lost so much already because of some within our midst taking offer's over the last 15 years, guess what one of the later next attacks will be based directly or in part on a offer already taken...then those who don't actually morally represent any angler will also take that offer...and so on it goes...no hope!

at least when we say no it means no and scares the daylights out of them because angler forever then have every right to attack back at any time with any related demand, our basic rights are not to be sold for recompense no more substantial than a few trinkets and beads.

Take a leaf out of the down south farmers/publics book who are fighting the upcoming access to water regulations to see just how it's done properly within our quasi democracy anything less and we are playing in kindergarten.

[TheRealAndy]

The RRFF review is slightly different FNQ. This time its not a green vote grab, its actually fisheries genuinley trying to manage our fisheries. However I am sure no one here believes that, so I am not going to argue the point again.

[rando]

Phil
Gday mate.
As you stated in your post no-one has ventured an alternative to restricting access to the resource as a management tool.

Quite simply there are only two methods of managing a populations size
1 increase recruiment
2 Decrease consumption.

As I have stated in my letter only one of these tools has been used to date, and, by its nature, restricting access to a resource is a one way street to tighter restrictions and greater cost , because pressure on the resource will always continue to grow with population.

Therefore history shows us that managing fisheries by only one of the means available does not work.
In its most benign manifestation it generates the sense that "Fishing isnt as good as it used to be"
At its worst a total lockout or as with northsea cod collapse of the fishery

A statement that "wild stocking is not viable at the moment" , accepts that one of the management tools is not going to be employed.
It also accepts that the only tool, is the one that has been demonstrated to lead to less and more expensive fish.

A pardigm shift is required here across all stakeholders,,,, Truly, what have we got to lose????.
The very worst that can occur is no discernable change.
OR
Potentially massive success ,a vibrant ,profitable, commercial sector, more cheaper local fish. And the chance to go out and get your bag whenever you get a chance.

Please everybody get on board,,,,, like I said nothing to lose everything to gain.
A whole new industry producing whitebait sized stocking biomass.

Take control of your fishery and demand Government restore what 150 yrs of neglect has produced. Dont let them manage you out of the fishery by applying only the tool that has been shown the be unsuccessful.

Rando

[FNQCairns]

The RRFF review is slightly different FNQ. This time its not a green vote grab, its actually fisheries genuinley trying to manage our fisheries. However I am sure no one here believes that, so I am not going to argue the point again.

Yeah I get your point still you misrepresent what i wrote, within what i said over those 15 years is exactly the same behavior as now...related to bag limits, sizes. and a miriad of other policies, fin cliping is another and so many other unjustified attempts aimed solely at decreasing amenity as the only aim achievable.

Caveat here: yes of coarse some of the regulations enacted within the last 15 years where actually appropriate and justified.

[PinHead]

Phill..why should we have to come u powith any alternative? They have size and bag limits now..police these better and cme up with some more accurate data. That is not our job to do..it is Jim Groves and his people job. They are fialing at it.
No need for alternative just have the people that are living off taxpayers money to do their jobs better would be a great start.

The obvious solution for all Govts these days when they don't really know what is going..put a restriction on it.

[Mark-P]

I'll be the first person to say, im not overly educated ! So on monday night i'll be the guy at the back listening to what people have to say . The one thing that i do get annoyed with, is the so called educated guys telling me how to suck eggs !
But if the so called experts say im catching to many snapper ( 2 in 4 years ) then so be it ! Farming may work, it does @ seaworld. What about upping the minimum size? I still think we are all paying for our forfathers lack of forsight, ie dredging mud island, dredging the brisbane river, pesticide runoff & the last recorded catch of a moreton bay bug in moreton bay, was the early seventys !
By a recfisho that is

Mark

[Aussie123]

If the government wants better catch data they should be looking at options like Work For the Dole
They have an army of unemployed people who can be stationed at every boat ramp in the state for an entire year and they can record every fish that fishermen catch and release so not only will they get snapper data but valuable catch data on every species out there.
It should be made compulsory for every skipper to answer a few questions while retrieving their boats and anyone refusing should have their rego details handed to fisheries for follow up action.
Getting the correct data I think is a must with what we are facing and answering a couple of questions on what you caught and/or released will not hurt anyone.
I would even be happy with a $20-$25 licence fee which should cover freshwater and saltwater and these funds could be used to help with the administration side of this project to finalize all of the results whether through fisheries or a private consulting company to grantee full transparency and possibly a small amount used for traveling costs involved for the people doing the recordings.

[Gazza]

Thanks Phill,

I believe that a final meeting of the snapper working group will be held before any Cabinet submission is drafted and we may have an opportunity to submit an alternative option.

I understand that financing any alternative option is the main challenge but I think that Fisheries will move towards a General Fishing Licence or a Offshore saltwater licence within the next 12 months. The licence would provide for the regular angler with a yearly fee of around $25 and a fee of around $5 for the occasional angler similar to NSW.

Any alternative option must include a more accurate method of collecting catch data from the recreational angler.

My personal preference is for the following option 5 for recreational anglers.

• A notional snapper TAC of 260 tonnes.
• Vessel based RRFF permit.
• Mandatory logbook or catch card recording number and size of all snapper, pearl perch and Trag caught. (Skipper is responsible for its completion)
• Biennial snapper catch and effort survey from data collected.

IF after reviewing the first biennial snapper catch and effort survey it is found that the recreational sector is exceeding the notional TAC of 260 tonnes then further limitations may be considered (e.g. In possession limit of 5 snapper with only 2 over 70cm)

Cheers
Barry

Barry , I'm sure your well "respected" here(& elsewhere) mate ,
but YOU have lost the plot with bending-over to Fisheries management of RecFishos.

That's just option 1 , and accepting...PRECEDENTS for the future

the biomass BS data , is caused by RecFishos..........BS!
we should pay ($90) species-specific levy(s)............BS!
we should have-2-have paperwork to fish................BS!

you also suggest? , in 12mths an RFL........................BS!

Barry ,you don't represent me ,don't think you do mate.

p.s. ask the NSW dudes "why their 30cm/10 limit" works...pansize maybe & zillions of 30~35cms

IMO...my Option 6.....is Option 4 with a 6wk closure , maybe GC 8wks
AND "not a penny MORE"

[Big Deez]

Phil
Gday mate.
As you stated in your post no-one has ventured an alternative to restricting access to the resource as a management tool.

Quite simply there are only two methods of managing a populations size
1 increase recruiment
2 Decrease consumption.

As I have stated in my letter only one of these tools has been used to date, and, by its nature, restricting access to a resource is a one way street to tighter restrictions and greater cost , because pressure on the resource will always continue to grow with population.

Therefore history shows us that managing fisheries by only one of the means available does not work.
In its most benign manifestation it generates the sense that "Fishing isnt as good as it used to be"
At its worst a total lockout or as with northsea cod collapse of the fishery

A statement that "wild stocking is not viable at the moment" , accepts that one of the management tools is not going to be employed.
It also accepts that the only tool, is the one that has been demonstrated to lead to less and more expensive fish.

A pardigm shift is required here across all stakeholders,,,, Truly, what have we got to lose????.
The very worst that can occur is no discernable change.
OR
Potentially massive success ,a vibrant ,profitable, commercial sector, more cheaper local fish. And the chance to go out and get your bag whenever you get a chance.

Please everybody get on board,,,,, like I said nothing to lose everything to gain.
A whole new industry producing whitebait sized stocking biomass.

Take control of your fishery and demand Government restore what 150 yrs of neglect has produced. Dont let them manage you out of the fishery by applying only the tool that has been shown the be unsuccessful.

Rando

Rando
As you have a good knowledge of aquaculture, can you give people an idea about the cost of producing snapper, how many would need to be stocked and who would produce the fingerlings.
Thanks

As for this post:

Barry , I'm sure your well "respected" here mate , but YOU have lost the plot with Fisheries management of RecFishos.

That's just option 1 , and accepting...

the biomass BS data , is caused by RecFishos..........BS!
we should pay ($90) species-specific levy(s)............BS!
we should have-2-have paperwork to fish................BS!

you also recommend , in 12mths an RFL...........................BS!

Barry ,you don't represent me ,don't think you do mate.
p.s. ask the NSW dudes "why their 30cm/10 limit" works...pansize maybe & zillions of 30~35cms

Barry
Can I just say that there are people who know how much time you and Bill have put into the consultation process and the sentiments of this individual are not those of the vast majority of rec fishos!

[Gazza]

Crap-on Big D , they have certainly spent heaps of time , for ZERO favourable result mate.

[dayoo]

Barry , I'm sure your well "respected" here(& elsewhere) mate ,
but YOU have lost the plot with bending-over to Fisheries management of RecFishos.

That's just option 1 , and accepting...PRECEDENTS for the future

the biomass BS data , is caused by RecFishos..........BS!
we should pay ($90) species-specific levy(s)............BS!
we should have-2-have paperwork to fish................BS!

you also suggest? , in 12mths an RFL........................BS!

Barry ,you don't represent me ,don't think you do mate.

p.s. ask the NSW dudes "why their 30cm/10 limit" works...pansize maybe & zillions of 30~35cms

IMO...my Option 6.....is Option 4 with a 6wk closure , maybe GC 8wks
AND "not a penny MORE"

Gazza,

Thanks for the compliments. Its all about finding the best option that suits MOST recreational anglers.

I posted my personal alternative option and never said that I represented all members of Ausfish and especially you.

I didn't suggest a recreation licence but pointed out that Fisheries may move in this direction within the next 12 months. Also I have had numerous discussions with ""NSW DUDES" aka marine biologists employed by NSW Fisheries.

Furthermore where did I advocate the $90 fee.

Go back to school and take some reading lessons. I am sick of smart arse comments especially when it is obvious you can't read.

Cheers
Barry