Redland bay snapper consultation meeting.

[rando]

Well , an extraordinary admission came from the fisheries tonight .After being asked where the funds from the various options was going , Fisheries scientist stated several times there was
" no money in the budget for :- compliance ,or education, or research to clarify the lack of real data on recreational catch",,,, in that order.

So the real story here is, fisheries cannot perform the task it is charged with by the government and is therefore trying to push through management options to raise funds.
Funds that will be used to pay inspectors, generate education programs on such things as managing barotrauma, and as an after-thought,,, do some research on snapper numbers.
This is the thin edge of the wedge ,once they get us paying for their existance....well you know the rest.

Fisheries paid for a chair-person to run the meeting, Selena, she did a brilliant job under difficult circumstances,as the PA system was a joke.

The difficulty was she had to try and give everyone a say. Many people asked questions and could not adequatly debate the answers given, Simply due to the numbers of people who needed to be heard.

Bill Corten spoke elequantly and asked the fisheries to go back to the drawing board.

The message to fisheries is clear, This is not good enough.!!!

My fear is, as they are still trying to defend their positions, they will not give due consideration to the any of the alternatives offered.

Cheers
rando

[Lovey80]

I got the same impression Rando. She certainly had pressure on her to keep it moving along which stopped people commenting on the responses from them. I guess in previous meetings they didn't like getting shouted at so the response was final.

The message is certainly clear though we are not happy with any of this process and we need to go back the the drawing board.

A lot was put back onto gov't. IMO FQ has to take responsibility for not pushing harder to do right by Rec Anglers. Beer budget or not the bootleg moonshine were getting served just aint drinkable.

Jim Groves gave the impression I expected, a top public servant that cares less about serving the public than doing what his bosses (pollies) are telling him to do.

I asked John Kung about possibly supplementing the 6 week closure in option one with a 40cm size limit as they would (by FQ estimates) roughly have the same effect with a 15% reduction. I could see that he didn't like the idea ( he was more worried about mortality) after I mentioned realise weights being mandatory he could see the point was certainly valid but I could tell he certainly didn't like it. He said to submit it and it would be considered but read between the lines that I would be wasting my time.

If any of the 4 get implemented it will show that FQ are just as culpable as Captain Bligh.

[warrigul]

this stuff makes my blood boil.
all these fee's going where?
queenslanders are going have to show anna bligh we are tough north of the border.
politicions aka piratiations only care about one thing, their popularity, end of story.
ask yourself how do make them feel the heat?
its not through their own organised meetings!
people power .
media media media.
this will take a huge rally in the middle of brisbane. no boats on trailers just men women and kids with a fishing rod in hand hey maybe a small flag on top.
a sat or sunday. Good train access for people to get there cheap enough.from the south and the north.
the timeing must allow for that nights news, next days paper. opposition partys notified for photo opportunitys, radio interveiws. train time tables allowing for plenty of time for people to get there.
this aint over.
these guys back flip all the the time if its starts to make them look bad to the mass public you can only achieve this through media.
my fear is that if the weather is good that day most wold go fishing instead of doing what has to be done, take on the qld goverment and fight fire with fire.
this rally would not be about commercial , rec, or the charter sectors own agenda becuase this is what divides most of us. this is about people power numbers numbers numbers it will have to be big.
we will need all the fishing clubs involved we need to make sure there is enough notice to let everybody know. at the fraser comps everyone is proud of the the fishing teams they represent wear your team shirts were your club uniform if there is any such thing.
god bless the future of our qld lifestyle.
andy

[rando]

I told Jim Groves his depatment was underfunded and it was a disgrace to expect anglers to fund the dept when we already pay thru the nose for the pleasure of fishing.
He shrugged

[finga]

I told Jim Groves his depatment was underfunded and it was a disgrace to expect anglers to fund the dept when we already pay thru the nose for the pleasure of fishing.
He shrugged

What do we get for our tax dollars if we have to do things like funding departs like Fisheries to look after the fish and and pay tolls so we can drive on roads??
Near every direct question that has been asked to Jim Groves on this forum has been answered by simply stating the facts are in the studies.
I'm afraid the studies are like Jim. Full of p!ss and wind with no hard facts.

[Lucky_Phill]

Thanks Rob, Chris and others................

I too am coming around to feel this is a fund raising exercise.

MY submission on how to fund " option 1 & 2 " is this.

DPI&F believe that about 9000 " boats " will take up the opportunity to pay for a permit. This would raise around $800,000. This money, as rando stated, will go complience, education and research.

What a piss poor amount and what will it buy ? I think the telephone surveys, which are really a bad way to collect data cost in the region of $400,000, so image if there was a better system in place that required more man hours ????

Over the last 2 years our boat and boat trailer registration has increased nearly 100%..... yes double. We all pay a PPV or now called a RUF ( Recreation Use Fee ) of about $17.40 and that money is collected by Qld Tpt and directed to Fisheries to " facilitating " recreational fishing. The total amount is about $4.12 million dollars... NOW, how about simply increasing that fee by $3.40 and you will get the $800,000 that would equal the $90 permit fees.

Better still, DOUBLE the RUF as have regos and put $4 million into research. This way the rec angler does not pay EXTRA to Fisheries to do THEIR job. A simple press of the financial button in Qld Tpt will direct necessary funds to Fisheries. OR is this TOO easy.

The message from the 3 meetings I have attended so far is....... NO FEES !!!!!

This No Fee message was also repeated within the SNWG by the rec reps on many occasions, but has not been taken seriously.

Let's also look at the seasonal changes in regard to the fishery.

Stock assessments were done in 2003 and 2008, both drought years. Given we have had good rain fall last year and enormous rainfall this year, the viability of the stocks should be increased exponentially. Also take into account the limited Snapper access over the December / January February period due to weather conditions..... our Snapper fishery have had a good break through decreased fishing effort. The Interim 6 week closure, starting today, is in fact a 16 week closure.......... it is believed by Fisheries that a 6 week closure will reduce effort over the year by 14%.......... well, that 14% reduction has well and truely been achieved and moreso, it has been more like 30%.

It was good the hove Dr Wayne Sumpton there to explain some research details in respect to spawning, trawler by-catch and other related issues. I believe Wayne will be at the Southport meeting tonight.


Cheers Phill
/
.

.
.
.

[SUPERDAFF]

Spot on team - last night's meeting was unique on a number of fronts. It was the first time that:

• The department publicly admitted that its figures for the recreational catch could be wrong. (All subsequent options are based on the underlying assumptions in that baseline data).
• The department also acknowledged that there had been figure substitution in its survey results. (In other words fudging a figure for someone who had not fished in 2005).
• The department admitted that the views of its working group were not reflected in the four options put forward.
• The ordinarily quite restrained and very articulate Bill Corten was moved to describe the four options being promoted as 'a crock of frogshit' and that the department should go back to the drawing board.
• A department head attended
• A contingent of politicians attended - Ray Hopper, Mark Robinson and Peter Dowling - all members of the LNP Opposition.

It also concerns me that after so much flak at previous meetings, not even the most basic pre-meeting checks were made such as ensuring the microphones were working.

Pretty much like the data methodology really - mismanaged, but plough on regardless.

Yes, I had my say (or rather my 'yell') about dud figures, the lack of transparency, ignoring the input of working party members et al, and yes, there were the usual trite responses from the departmental staff salted in among some seriously worrrying admissions.

I also was concerned that Jim Groves said to me that I would already have known there were concerns about the data if I had read all the documentation. Pity the stafffers didn't bother to acknowledge that in previous meetings or in the Green Zones discussions.

Hey, but once you get caught out, why not admit it, right? Yeah right !

But despite the meeting being more effectively chaired, despite it being a far more mellow crowd and despite it being held on Valentine's Day, I wasn't feeling too much love for the department...

SUPERDAFF

[warrigul]

WHAT DO YOU GET FOR TAX DOLLAR,
last year qld goverment bought in a fee for safe food qld.
around $300.00. for a sticker.
i asked what i got for this fee? this is a leglistion fee. i said for what?
it is a legal requirement i was told.
so i rang dpi, nope they were not involeved in the enfotcement.
i rang council nope nothing to do with them.
i rang safe qld back up and said being you provide no training for this sticker and you just told me there is no one currently employed to check vessels why would i give you money for nothing just for the sake of you saying it was now a requirement.
blatant fund raising. i dont want to go off topic but if anyone thinks this about saving snapper i guess you probaly agree with companys offsetting their carbon tax with the air trees breath out (carbon credits). what a friggin joke.
do you think by setting up meetings in a port by port basis was so" they can deal with fishermens concerns on a more intamate basis and give them real answers" well you know answer to that. it was to keep numbers small so there would not be too much media attenion.

this is another tax.
most concerning is this will be just the start if we don't tell them to shove it!
pelagic liscence
snapper liscence
saltwater fishing liscence and like every bloody fee they never come down they just go up. sorry to go off the deepend but i've had a gut full.
will anyone help me organise a protest rally in brisbane with plenty of notice to send these politicians a message?
andy

[tropicrows]

The impression I got from the meeting is that fisheries/government are only interested in reducing the pressure on the snapper fishery the cheapest way they can. The easiest way they can achieve this, is to put in place a $90 permit system that many boaties will not purchase and have a closed season.

They are NOT really interested in gaining any useful data from the rec fisherman that can be used to monitor the fishery and the effect a $90/$70 fee, and closed season with have on the business that support rec fishing.

Jim Groves did say that all other options apart from the 4 tabled last night would be considered, BUT they would need to meet fisheries criteria. In other words we are going to one of there 4 options NOT a highbred option.

[Tangles]

They admitted that:
1: Pearlies and Trag are under no threat but adjacent to snapper
2 Dollies will come under the 15 reef fish limit as adjacent to snapper as well

Question asked:
You have put a closure on Snapper/(Pearlies and Trag as they are adjacent to Snapper), if you bring in a permit fee for Snapper , if I dont pay can i still fish for pearlies and Trag, Answer was YES.

IE total inconsistency

[Jim Groves]

Jim Groves did say that all other options apart from the 4 tabled last night would be considered, BUT they would need to meet fisheries criteria. In other words we are going to one of there 4 options NOT a highbred option.

Can I ask that people not put words in my mouth? I said that all options would be considered by Government, but in considering an option Government would have to consider whether it sufficiently addresses the problems in the fishery. I think, following the tenor of Bill Corten's intervention, that that would be an uncontroversial proposition.

Jim Groves
MD
Fisheries Queensland

[Lachie1]

How many people in the higher up - management style positions in FQ regulary go fishing?

[tropicrows]

Quote:
Originally Posted by tropicrows
Jim Groves did say that all other options apart from the 4 tabled last night would be considered, BUT they would need to meet fisheries criteria. In other words we are going to one of there 4 options NOT a highbred option.


Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Groves
Can I ask that people not put words in my mouth? I said that all options would be considered by Government, but in considering an option Government would have to consider whether it sufficiently addresses the problems in the fishery. I think, following the tenor of Bill Corten's intervention, that that would be an uncontroversial proposition.

Jim is that not what I said.
All other options apart from the 4 tabled last night would be considered, BUT they would need to meet fisheries criteria. ?????

And I stand by my last sentence, we will end up with one of the 4 options as the decision has all ready been made IMO. If that ends up not being the case well I will owe you a beer Jim and an apology.

[finga]

Can I ask that people not put words in my mouth?
Jim Groves
MD
Fisheries Queensland

Why not??
You (Queensland Fisheries) put figures that came from no-where into your models to say snapper are in big troubles as a species.

[tropicrows]

Moreton Bay Trawl by-catch is estimated by DPI&F at 5 tons. That is, if the juvenile fish that are killed through by-catch were to escape and live out a normal life, that would transfer into 5 tons of adult fish.

Given that Snapper spawn at least twice by the 35cms MLS and that in fact could spawn more than once in a year until such an age they discontinue to be fertile ( ? ), would that then be acceptable to extrapolate that 5 ton into bio-mass of 65 tons per year after a 10 year period and up to 195 tons per year for the 30 year period ( to which Snapper live to ) ?

By that rationale, the Moreton Bay trawl fishery deprives the RRFF Snapper Fishery of somewhere between 65 and 195 tons of fish per year. Quite significant given that the Commercial Quota is about 160 tons alone.

Taking that figure into account, it would mean the total Harvest of Snapper in the RRFF fishery is about 900tons…..

DPI&F want to bring the Bio-Mass to 40% of original, or as they state drop the recreational harvest by an amount of about 200tons. I can see 200 tons in the nets of the Moreton Bay trawl fishery. !!!!!!!!!!!!!

If my figures are wrong, can someone point out why ?