Redland bay snapper consultation meeting.

[thelump]

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 ?

One of the smartest statements made to date but it seems no one is willing to buy them out

[rando]

Jim

None of the altenatives offered last night were given any credence. With out exception, the responses were negative.

Negative to stocking,,, reason ,The river systems in NSW where jew are successfully being stocked are "closed systems" Funny that!! they seem to be getting plenty of jewies off the beach

Negative to lunar one week closures at peak spawning times,,, reason Snapper spawn over a variable spawning time.

How many people were able to hear Mr Weche (fisheries scientist)say partially off microphone " but a June July August ,lunar closure would get the bulk of them.
I did and as i was sitting three seats from you I expect you did also.

Many suggestions were deemed to be "valid", but!!!,,,, but what??....but we dont like it!!!, but it wont raise any money.!!!

Jim If you cant negotiate to secure the funds to manage your department without suggesting to the Government that they tax us for the pleasure of fishing. Then you have quite simply failed as a manager .

If you cant get funding from DERM to adequately address ,compliance ,education and research perhaps the department needs to go to a portfolio where it is not the "poor cousin".

Recreational fishing is not a DERM activity but it is the major stakeholder in the department of fisheries. We demand you act in our best interests with no further financial impost
You work for us Jim

[honda900]

Jim,

Last night you gave permission for the data on how the $90.00 fee was derived, could you please direct me to where I can obtain this information.

Secondly Can I suggest that a better record of the public meeting, questions and responses would be to record (audio) of the sessions, then make them available from your website, so those who could not attend or did not know about the sessions are able to independently assess the information and discussions.

There were reference made to docuements last night of interest to the public that were not captured on the butchers paper, as the lady could not hear the person discussing where that data was.


Regards
HOnda.

[Moonlighter]

Attention: Jim

I was unable to attend last night but a key question that I hope someone asked is about the Stout Whiting trawl fishery and its impact (bycatch) on snapper.

I hear that this fishery is being considered for expansion or has already been expanded. What is the bycatch data on this fishery (particularly regarding snapper by-catch)??

Given the state that Fisheries say that snapper stocks are in, how could any fishery such as the Stout Whiting trawl that I understand could impact negatively on snapper possibly be even considered for any form of expansion??

Or is one arm of Fisheries not talking to the other??

Look forward to your reply.

Cheers

Grant

[Gazza]

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

Hi Jim , Thanks for attending and hopefully "feeling the vibes" from the grassroots "users" of the resource.....with whatever interpretation you may deem to put towards the "consultation" process.

One word that I would ask to be clarified is "HYBRID" as in mix of the present Options , is this necessarily a bad thing or just no models have been run to determine outcome(s)
i.e. is each and every Option 1~4 fixed , or with feedback from the "users" , able to meet to a slight mix of the eventual outcome, to acheive the best result for "users" & the perceived fish situation.


e.g. Option 1 , you may think $90 will attract 9000 users .....just ask the Clem7 operators. ,
Q. what happens if only 1500 users buy-in , can you still support the infrastructure "as promised"

e.g. Option 4 , is 4 months closure the best reflection of Fisheries Management...."of whats needed"
by USING YOUR PRESENT means of gathering Data(s)

As I repeat , to clarify is a "HYBRID" solution ,not allowed or -ve or simply working together

[Janelle]

I am very interested to see the breakdown and costing that lead to the figure of $90 being nominated for the permit fee. It was good to hear fisheries confirm last night that this information will be made available.

Lots of people are saying we don't trust the data and need better data and yet this has been overshadowed by the attributing of the $90 to Option one. It would be interesting to see what the feedback would have been if fisheries had put forward option one and two without the fees.

Using high fees as a management option is crazy and yet this is exactly what is being done.

The RIS actually states that:

This RIS also considers a range of options and tools that aim to reduce catch levels by

• directly restricting the size of the catch
• requiring people to pay appropriate fees to fish, including introducing a snapper permit.

I did speak to the facilitator last night after the meeting and insured that it is in the records of the meeting that the costings for the $90 will be made available.

Also interesting that the Department has run out of hardcopies of the RIS. More are being printed now.

Janelle

[Greg P]

They admitted that:

2 Dollies will come under the 15 reef fish limit as adjacent to snapper as well

WTF ??? Adjacent to snapper That will do me - what crap !!!!

[rando]

I think its time for the rec stakeholders to put together a professionally produced alternative managagement proposal.
While-ever we present proposals/suggestions /alternatives as individuals we will fall foul of the weight of authority the opinions of the department of fisheries carry.
It was obvious to me last night that the scientists have no idea if their proposals will work.
They told us lower bag limits and higher minimum sizes would fix the problems back in 2002, they now say population trends are still declining.

We were told Green zones would provide sanctuary to fish to prevent overfishing.
Apparently this measure has had no effect either.

Now they say more restrictions and massive fees will fix the problems that MODELING IDENTIFIES despite the fact that the tools they have utilized so far have not produced the results their MODELING predicts.

They refuse to take direction from the people who are on the water finding and catching the fish.

Every fisher wants a sustainable fishery. I ,and I know many of you do not trust the fisheries department to act in the best interests of either the fishery or the major participants in the fishery.

[TimiBoy]

Who gives a foetid pile of dodo anyway?

By the time these mental midgets get to bring this to Parliament we will have a different Government, ie. it won't get there.

We will have told Anna and her opaque troop of no hope Green mongering twits to go away for a while, and will get some sense into FQ. Won't we LNP?

Meanwhile, like Pinhead, I will fish. I will adhere to the bag limits and size limits, but as to anything other regulations they can stuff them so far up their old address's they'll need a torch to read them. Why? They couldn't Police an Assembly of God, Lamington Drive, let alone the water.

Of course we have some very intelligent constructions from the likes of Phill Kliese, Barry Day, Bill Corten and others, which are giving Fisheries some useful ideas for a future time. A time when they are not being led by damn fool bureaucrats who stupidly think we can't see through them - all they want is to protect their fat Super payout until retirement age - "yes Minister, no Minister" is their mantra. They care as much for the Fishery as I do for Abdullah's collection of prize camel droppings.

Tim

[rando]

There you are Tim, I wondered where you were hiding


Dont count on any goodwill from Fisheries,,,, they have to justify their existance!!!

[finga]

Who gives a foetid pile of dodo anyway?

By the time these mental midgets get to bring this to Parliament we will have a different Government, ie. it won't get there.

We will have told Anna and her opaque troop of no hope Green mongering twits to go away for a while, and will get some sense into FQ. Won't we LNP?
Tim

Nothing like counting your chickens before they hatch eh Timmi my boy.

Every-body thought she wouldn't get back in last time either did they?? And she did.

[Moonlighter]

Janelle - you are 100% right.

They are intentionally and openly using the snapper tax for one main purpose: to reduce the number of people who fish for snapper.

In fact the $90 fee strikes me as:

1. a solution proposed by the greeny economists in DERM (probably the ex-EPA ones who are still there) whose rationale would be the same as a carbon tax - in other words, whack on a great big tax and it will be a dis-incentive for people to fish for snapper, therefore less snapper caught.

2. Adding a new big new tax seems to be the default solution to Labor Governments everywhere these days.

3. An incredible thing for a Labor Government to do - whack a tax on something that will mean that only those rich enough to afford it will buy one, therefore making snapper a "rich man's species". We are then just a step or two from all fishing being called a "rich mans sport" - this could be the thin edge of a very nasty wedge.

4. Doesn't that sort of thing go against the fundamental objective of Labor Governments of making sure that everyone can have equal access to things, not just the rich?? What about looking after the average Joe worker?

It's just wrong, and especially so for a political party that is supposed to have a core value of social equity. Bah, humbug!

5. They cant argue that it's a "fee for service" because they have stated quite clearly that there will be no extra resources for Fisheries to administer the whole debacle, so we're not getting any actual service from them for the $90. Zip. All we get is a tax to be able to keep snapper.

Just shows how much this Government have lost the plot and why they are losing so many traditional Labor voters. They have corrupted their basic principles in order to do dirty deals with the greens to stay in power. More and more people are seeing this, and realising how disgraceful it is.

Jim - tell me if I've got the rationale for the snapper tax wrong!

Grant

[Mark Robinson MP]

I enjoyed the Redlands meeting. Staying in contact with those who regularly fish is important. While I fish as often as my busy work life allows, there is nothing like face to face discussions to try to find solutions. I don't expect everyone to trust a pollie nor the LNP, but I will get to everything I can and take feedback regularly to LNP leadership so that all fishers have their say. You can judge me by my actions ... I know you will anyway. Thanks Jim (Groves) for being there personally. It mustn't be easy, but appreciate you were there. I hope you can get through to the government the importance of them listening to what you have heard and I hope they do really have an open mind.
TimiBoy spoke of parliament and the LNP. I post below a media release i put out today (hard-hitting - I warn you) but it shows what we are trying to do at every level. Why don't you call your State MP and ask him which way he/she is going to vote when the disallowance motion is debated. Ask him/her if they are going to represent your view in the parliament. If he/she supports the bans then have the courage of your convictions and whatever your politics, get rid of them!! If you don't, please don't whinge to me if Bligh gets back in on your vote and you have 4 month bans every year, and you lose at least 30% of Moreton Bay in new Green zones (that is what the Greens are chasing). And if I lose my seat of Cleveland you will lose an MP who regularly speaks on fishing issues in the parliament. I won't say no if any fishers want to help my campaign when the election is called - possibly 3rd Quarter this year.
Tight lines,
Mark

Mark Robinson MP

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Apprenticeships & Trade Training
(assisting the Shadow Minister for Education and Training)

LNP Member for Cleveland

16 February 2011

LNP OPPOSES LABOR'S SNAPPER BAN IN QUEENSLAND PARLIAMENT

Member for Cleveland, Mark Robinson, today joined with Shadow Fisheries Minister, Ray Hopper, to try and stop the government's draconian snapper ban by introducing a disallowance motion in Queensland Parliament today.

"The LNP opposes the unjust and draconian Labor regulation that bans snapper fishing in Queensland over the next 6 weeks, " Dr Robinson said.

"The Bligh government tried to sneak this ban into Queensland just days before Christmas, to escape public attention and without appropriately debating it in the Parliament.

"The LNP disallowance motion insures that the government MPs must now take notice of what their community is saying and be prepared to stand for what they believe in the Queensland parliament.

"Like the tremor before the full earthquake hits, the greater concern among Queensland's 750,000 recreational fishers, is that the initial 6 week ban will lead to Labor stealthily introducing 4 month snapper bans.

"Fisheries department officials meeting in the Redlands this week could not rule out that monster bans of 4 months at a time wouldn't be introduced during this year's snapper season due to start in June.

"If the government moves to introduce 4 month long snapper bans in June this year, it would devastate local charter boat small businesses and deeply hurt recreational fishing tourism in Moreton Bay at a time when local tourist operators and marine industries are struggling to recover from the worst floods in our State's history.

[Lovey80]

Timi, I am not half as confident that blight won't be here after the election as I was before the floods.

Funny things is with fisheries management is that 99.9% of people abide by the law simply because it's the law and for the most part it is the right thing to do. We return big flat head and the benefits are there for all to see. It certainly seems with the way things hav been going of late that is all about to change. In all honesty civil disobedience is just around the corner.

[tropicrows]

First up thanks for the PM's I received for my "post 15 on this thread".

I have found the figures and spent some time doing the modeling with a friends help.

Trawl by-catch of snapper.



5 ton of fish are removed, therefore NOT allowing them to breed. Hence if they WERE in the system and the breeding process took place, it would extrapolate out on a basis that the 5 ton are no longer there.

We could go down the numbers path.... each Snapper that produces fertilized eggs, returns anywhere from 100,000 and 400,000 eggs with a mortality rate of 0.0001% in the wild each season. ( 2 – 4 fish grow out to maturity from each spawning )

5 Ton of breeding stock of fish equates to 3125 fish... each laying average amount of eggs and taking into account natural mortality would equate to about 9375 juvenile snapper being trawled out of the system each year. Then those fish that are lost to the fishery would have produced another ( maturity age ) 28,125 fish or 17.57 tons. That is for each and every year and you could extrapolate that out in this way.

Taking into account that a mature fish only spawned once, as they are known to spawn several times under the right conditions.

The year 2001.

5 ton fish removed and breeding stock to mature is 17.57 tons. That amount over 10 years would be 175.70 tons.

The year 2002.

5 tons fish removed and breeding stock to mature is 17.57 tons. That amount over 9 years would be 158.13 tons.

2003…..140.56 tons
2004…..122.99 tons
2005…..105.42 tons
2006….. 87.85 tons
2007…. 70.28 tons
2008…. 52.71 tons
2009…. 35.14 tons
2010…. 17.57 tons

You see, by removing the 5 tons in 2001, you have essentially removed 175.70 tons of stock from the fishery. Or nearly 1.1 million fish.

2008 stock assessment puts average snapper caught by rec anglers at 1.62kgs.

2003 stock assessment puts average snapper caught by rec anglers at .9kgs.

The science says we take 400 tons about..

The science say we rec anglers take 250,000 fish currently per year.

The science implies that about 27 snapper are taken each year by rec anglers, individually ( or about 43kgs each ).


1.1 million fish put back into the fishery ie:- the 175.7 tons from trawl by-catch and you have the bio-mass at 57%. Well above the required 40% fisheries say is a sustainable level.