Snapper RIS response - easier online

[robtarr]

Maybe I'm blind but I hadn't seen the path to complete RIS submission online anywhere until reading the March BnB editorial piece today. For those that haven't yet sent in a response - and maybe blind like me - this makes it much easier to have a say. Hope the link I pasted works.

http://www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au/co...activityID=356

I know plenty will scream "why bother" but the eternal optimist in me regards it similar to a vote - if you don't then you lose the right to complain about the outcome.

We've got until Fri 8th April

cheers Rob

[albey]

Already submitted.
Bit upset though on the way questions were asked.
eg Q8 Re being asked if pelagics and others should be included with a snapper,pearlies and trags closure,------I would have preferred if they had a square for NONE of the above,your response is then non ambiguous.

A couple of other question fall into the same category.
If one does not respond to this question,it probably gets tabulated as "doesnt care".
Typical though!!!!!

[Moonlighter]

After some thought I also completed the on-line submission response to the Snapper RIS, as said previously it may be futile but if you don’t respond you can hardly complain about the result can you!
The guts of the form is BS, but at the end you get to tell them what you really think in the "other comments" section.

FYI, the below is the "additional comments" that I added. You are limited to 8000 characters and my response uses every bit of that! This is just my view, I do strongly support the work done by Bill Corten and our other colleagues on the Snapper Working party.

Anyway in case you need a help with some words to add at the end of your response when you do the survey, feel free to use the below message or cut and paste from what I've written!

I strongly disagree with the notion of a vessel fee being used as an economic disincentive for people to catch snapper. This is a retrograde step that is contrary to the principles of social equity and launches the Government towards a policy of fishing licences which also contradicts with stated policy.

The independent reviews of the snapper data and analysis recognise that there are significant deficiencies in the recreational data about snapper, and that this leads to uncertainly about the real status of snapper stocks. Further, the conclusion in your stock assessment that snapper stocks are unsustainable is not consistent with my own real world experience.

As an experienced angler who regularly targets snapper both within Moreton Bay and offshore from Nth Straddie and Moreton Islands, when I find that my real world experience contradicts what your research says, then it seems to me that either something is deficient with your data collection (most likely, as indicated by the independent reviews), or suddenly that I have become exponentially better at catching snapper (I don't think so!)

As a responsible recreational fisherman I think we need to be part of the solution to help get the data necessary on these species, and for that reason I support the compulsory snapper logbook concept: But, if you genuinely want to adopt a partnership approach with the recreational sector to help get this better data on snapper (and potentially other species in the future),then you can't reasonably smack a big fee on us as part of that process.

The beneficiaries of a better managed snapper fishery extend well beyond those recreational, charter and commercial fishers who fish for them, it benefits the community as a whole - or at least those who enjoy eating fresh local seafood. On that basis the costs of funding the establishment and implementation of recreational snapper logbooks and the analysis of the data should be borne by a wider group than just those rec fishers who fish for them - and my suggestion is it would be more simply and better funded via a small increase to the relevant fisheries fee that is already part of our annual boat registrations.

Further, a steering group needs to be established to oversee the logbook development and implementation to ensure the process has credibility with our sector. So it must have balanced representation of recreational fishers and Fisheries scientists. Leave the greenies out - they have no real stake or value to add in this exercise! We also need to have clearly established, in advance, the measures/targets that we are trying to achieve and how we will know (ie what the data would look like) when we have achieved those targets, and also specify the management response that will occur if we achieve/do not achieve/do not see progress towards those targets.

This will help us have confidence in the process - without that happening, the level of mistrust with the Government and fisheries that now exists will get in the way of achieving what we all want - a sustainable fishery for the long term.

Including pearl perch and trag in with snapper on the basis that they are caught together is also wrong. We catch these fish in different locations, and when we are targetting snapper, both trag and snapper are an occasional by-catch at best, which can be managed by encouraging the use of release devices.

In summary, NONE of the options presented in the RIS are acceptable as they stand. You will find a high level of support amongst rec fishers for the proposals developed by the snapper working group where we were represented by Bill Corten and others. As a rec fisher, option 1 is closest but it must be amended 1. to remove the set compulsory closures, 2. de-couple pearl perch and trag from snapper, 3. get rid of the $90 fee and replace it with a small increase to the fishing fee on our boat registrations, 4. Establish a recreational fishing trust/steering committee to oversee and make decisions about the snapper logbook system and its implementation and monitoring results, 5. targets, data and management responses to be established up front.

[SUPERDAFF]

Filled in my form on-line and in Section 5, I noted:

When the Marine And Coastal Committee (MACC), a body of the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council sought to quantify stocks, the guiding principles included:

Goal 1: Improve the information base available

Guiding Objective 1: Design and implement a transparent process
Guiding Objective 2: Collect and maintain baseline population information
Guiding Objective 3: Determine the level and causes of mortality, including harvest
Guiding Objective 4: Gather all information on relevant management practices
Guiding Objective 5: Encourage greater respect of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge, management practices and customs relevant to achieving sustainable harvests

Seem reasonable? How unfortunate that the Queensland system seems to be predicated upon:

1 Establish the result we want
2 Manipulate methodologies and evidence to produce some data
3 Form a working party to add credibility
4 Make recommendations independent of that working party
5 Hold public meetings to simulate transparency
6 Give several choices of our preferred options
7 Raise money from targets
8 Celebrate our achievements

It is appalling to say the rec. fishers shoud have to pay for the research when:

• Our Premier swore she would not remove the 8 cents a litre petrol subsidy and then did the moment she was elected. (Add $8 per offshore trip for me)
• Bureaucrats spent $17 million on an education facility and then prompty closed it down. (Expenditure was in budget; on-going operation wasn't).
• They also reportedly incurred a $180 million liability to fix a $70 million ineffective computerised pay system in the Health Department
• They blew $70 million in two parts, on an ineffective Emergency Services computer management system. (In phase one, it wouldn't even print a job card).
• They spent $3.5 million telling doctors to drink coffee and keep and eye on each other if they were tired - but for interns to keep working 40 hours straight. (Yet they wonder why there were so many out-of-court financial settlements for medical mistakes).

It goes on and on.

If bureaucrats and politicians can't find the $4 million they need for a study while they simultaneously shovel our money into a bureaucratic incincerator and continue to increase marine-related registration fees, then very clearly, they're not the right people for the job.

SUPERDAFF
Just a Poor and Simple Soul

[TREVELLY]

For what it is worth I did the submission.

I don't belive it is for the good of the species as the approach is to heavy handed and serious consultation and consideration does not appear to be swaying the outcome in this process.

Only votes and elections appear to be heard by the bureacrats who intern direct the department - even if the twits in charge have no idea!

Can't wait for a state election more of what happened in NSW

[Captain Incredible]

The reality is that we are all unhappy with the "consultation" process. A large part of the angst comes from the nature of the questions as well as where the questions originated from. SOME WOULD STRONGLY SUPORT THAT WE ARE BEING LED DOWN THE GARDEN PATH.

I believe we should all respond with a submission.

I also believe that we all should be calling our local State MLAs, having meetings with them, and giving them the REAL fisher's perspective. And the Minister as well, if you can get in. Doing nothing achieves the result of getting what you deserve- nothing. And when your fishery is taken from you, look in the mirror and blame yourself.

Responding to the RR RIS is a necessary part of the process dictated by Fisheries. Where you make a difference is by then following the political trail up to the head waters by seeing your local pollie and giving them the REAL local perspective on the consequences to their recreational fishos and recreational fishing industries, ALL OF WHOM VOTE.

Please respond to the RR RIS. Then get on the blower to your local MLA and REALLY get your voice heard.

[dayoo]

Have a say by completing the comments section in the response form. The comments will be reviewed and presented in a tabulated form to the Minister.

I'll bet my lefty that option 2 minus the fee gets the nod plus an adjustment to the in possession limit. The six week closure should get the chop or at least be restricted to snapper only.

Cheers
Barry

[TREVELLY]

Agree totally guys - some questions were completely unanswerable - so i gave no answer BUT did clarify my position at the end where comments go.

Still can't see why some sensible options were not included like increasing the minimum size limit and limiting the number of maximum size to preserve the breeders (similar but not the same as with flathead) - but maybe that is just to easy to implement eg minimu size 40cm and only two over 60cm with a total limit of 5 - is something like that so hard??

And definitely stop including bycatch - such a nonsense to even consider pelalgics there too - just shows they have no idea!

Yes Keith answering this RIS is a good minimum - but if you feel strongly about this send letters to the politicians - it doesn't take long to write a few lines and email them - they don't ignore lost votes if enough do it.

[TREVELLY]

Closes tomorrow - get involved OR