POLL - Fishery Survey - Help Them or Not

[TheRealAndy]

I was told they were collecting data on the no of take species of parrot fish. Id say that would include divers and fishermen. Second, when I asked them how many they had counted they said none for the day and they went on to say that they must be in short supply or limited in population. I then went on to say that I had easily seen over a hundred parrot for the day.
These crap studies were the same ones done by those fools who did the Grey Nurse Numbers which was the biggest joke. Check out the great shark count data and you will see why?

The people collecting the data are not the scientists, so what they say is not really relevent.

[FNQCairns]

The great unwashed have absolutely no idea what environmental science is about today and the marine sciences is at the forefront of it...absolutely.

If the scientists did not have a pointed ideological direction to take the survey/research/experiment/data results then they wouldn't bother, the days of environmental science for science sake are long gone, there will be an underground i suspect but it will be virtually unfunded and largely devoid of review .

They are all, irrespective of whether government employed no more than hawkers for their very own bank accounts.

step 1 in funding, ensure that the wording of the application relays some sort of catastrophic event might be likely if not funded.

step 2, covert this understanding as true at all times to protect fully the opportunity for future funding on the same topic or to at least ensure that the department/organization grows through future access through funding and /or legislation.

step 3, because the original funding was released and only possible based on horror/negative expectations, all press results (most often a mandatory condition of funding so the government get to beat their breast that they are spending money, can also be because the minister involved has a pet interest in the area) and the conclusion for publication MUST relay catastrophic etc or at the very least the opportunity of it in the future.

step 4, all future applications can now build on the previous conclusion as it is easier to get funding for it now given the funding already received....no proof necessary, no ethics necessary, the paper will be peer reviewed by others doing the exact same thing in their chosen portion of interest in the field, lovely little Ponzi scheme is created where the mandatory scientific output must convey disaster. It's a scam pure and simple at this level of scientific adventure.

step 5, all scientist and workers involved can buy that new car...after all if they play it well enough the research might get funded for years to come.....fluffing the truth just enough to make legislation being the ultimate in gainful end results.


Pftt! the state of government funded environmental science today is just a joke, a big Ponzi scheme joke on every one us and people want to help them out? better to volunteer at the head office of Scientology.....they in practice are not much worse.

[Matt_Campbell]

The great unwashed have absolutely no idea what environmental science is about today and the marine sciences is at the forefront of it...absolutely.

If the scientists did not have a pointed ideological direction to take the survey/research/experiment/data results then they wouldn't bother, the days of environmental science for science sake are long gone, there will be an underground i suspect but it will be virtually unfunded and largely devoid of review .

They are all, irrespective of whether government employed no more than hawkers for their very own bank accounts.

step 1 in funding, ensure that the wording of the application relays some sort of catastrophic event might be likely if not funded.

step 2, covert this understanding as true at all times to protect fully the opportunity for future funding on the same topic or to at least ensure that the department/organization grows through future access through funding and /or legislation.

step 3, because the original funding was released and only possible based on horror/negative expectations, all press results (most often a mandatory condition of funding so the government get to beat their breast that they are spending money, can also be because the minister involved has a pet interest in the area) and the conclusion for publication MUST relay catastrophic etc or at the very least the opportunity of it in the future.

step 4, all future applications can now build on the previous conclusion as it is easier to get funding for it now given the funding already received....no proof necessary, no ethics necessary, the paper will be peer reviewed by others doing the exact same thing in their chosen portion of interest in the field, lovely little Ponzi scheme is created where the mandatory scientific output must convey disaster. It's a scam pure and simple at this level of scientific adventure.

step 5, all scientist and workers involved can buy that new car...after all if they play it well enough the research might get funded for years to come.....fluffing the truth just enough to make legislation being the ultimate in gainful end results.


Pftt! the state of government funded environmental science today is just a joke, a big Ponzi scheme joke on every one us and people want to help them out? better to volunteer at the head office of Scientology.....they in practice are not much worse.

A well thought-out piece FNQ. Thanks for enlightening us on this issue. Is there a blog, podcast or vodcast I can subscribe to in order to hear more of your views?

[Gazza]

Yes m8...website AUSFISH , he's "famous" there

[Gazza]

Whether or not they have an agenda, I think that we should report our catches accurately when asked. provide as much information as you wish, but it would be my suggestion that you be vague about location (but still truthful) Insterad of saying "I caught these snaps at mud island", just say Moreton bay, if they ask for more details, just say all over the place, i did a lot of travelling today.

Everyone on here has had a whinge and a bitch about dodgy science and data, well now they are trying to get the data, and people are still whinging. No data, no results, just opinion, good data, and results can be skewed, but at least there is data to back it up and run other models etc, AT LEAST THERE WILL BE DATA to take reference from.

Unintentional BS imo Scott , Zero/zip/ziltch biomass "data" can be deduced from a RecFisho "survey" ,regardless of "participation"
jmo..&..no skin lost m8 ,respect your pov

p.s. ANYBODY...correct me , if i'm wrong

[FNQCairns]

A well thought-out piece FNQ. Thanks for enlightening us on this issue. Is there a blog, podcast or vodcast I can subscribe to in order to hear more of your views?

Whats wrong with it Matt? it was that way when I used to be involved in fishery's research applications, used to turn my stomach at times, it turned too far to the sad side and is the major reason I have no income from fishery' conservation research anymore and never will...the dis-credible behavior (scientific) simply become far to unreal in this arena.

I actually moved from commercial fishery's research over to the conservation side as a competitive placement, today unless I was radical green and card carrying and outspoken on it to the correct individuals i doubt I would have any competitive chance these days.......the types employed today are a far far cry from the qualities and ethics of scientists 20-30 years ago, these individuals are all mostly gone now.

How low can we go?? fishery's/marine conservation research is skin cream or ab-sizer quality research when compared to medical or private commercial research..no comparison.

[NAGG]

Bugger the conspiracy theories & that a LNP government will fix all with proper scientific data ...... what a load of tripe. The minister will rely on the department to advise him - not him advising fisheries. ... that is the reality. Talk to anyone at a senior level in a government department & you will be told - business as usual unless some pollie says they are going to make cuts or unless something has created some unwanted media attention.

I still want to know how you come up with accurate scientific data in an open environment like the ocean , bays & estuaries ....... at best you can only get a snap shot (a small one) .....
The Marlin tagging program has been one of the most successful means of obtaining scientific data - It's also one of the easiest to manage & monitor - yet its been going for something like 40 years ........ Is this the type of program that we need for other rec species?
Ramp surveys are invaluable - but the data collected needs to be accurate ..... therefore those doing the surveys should have the authority to inspect catches - not only to check the legality of the catch but obtain real data .......
Many years ago , I took part in a kingfish survey in NSW - legal sized fish were becoming scarce ......... this data was used in part to ban the use of floating kingfish traps - the fishery is now recovering nicely
So benefits can be gained by giving real information rather than misleading rubbish.

Chris

[trymyluck]

Bugger the conspiracy theories & that a LNP government will fix all with proper scientific data ...... what a load of tripe. The minister will rely on the department to advise him - not him advising fisheries. ... that is the reality. Talk to anyone at a senior level in a government department & you will be told - business as usual unless some pollie says they are going to make cuts or unless something has created some unwanted media attention.

I still want to know how you come up with accurate scientific data in an open environment like the ocean , bays & estuaries ....... at best you can only get a snap shot (a small one) .....
The Marlin tagging program has been one of the most successful means of obtaining scientific data - It's also one of the easiest to manage & monitor - yet its been going for something like 40 years ........ Is this the type of program that we need for other rec species?
Ramp surveys are invaluable - but the data collected needs to be accurate ..... therefore those doing the surveys should have the authority to inspect catches - not only to check the legality of the catch but obtain real data .......
Many years ago , I took part in a kingfish survey in NSW - legal sized fish were becoming scarce ......... this data was used in part to ban the use of floating kingfish traps - the fishery is now recovering nicely
So benefits can be gained by giving real information rather than misleading rubbish.

Chris

Bullshit.......... Forget about the past, in todays political climate where said minister's political future may depend on green preferences then the info gained may end up being used to justify the means of buying those preferences. In the past I believe that the motive for fisheries management was for that very reason. Now its just a political football.

Mark

[NAGG]

Bullshit.......... Forget about the past, in todays political climate where said minister's political future may depend on green preferences then the info gained may end up being used to justify the means of buying those preferences. In the past I believe that the motive for fisheries management was for that very reason. Now its just a political football.

Mark

Mark if you are right ....... then we just have to look to across the border & see what changes are made to NSW fisheries - but more importantly their focus / research....... You can see what they have been up to on their website. I'll be keen to see just what Barry O'Farrel will do to improve the department - if anything.

Chris

PS ...... just so this can be documented here on Ausfish - Here is the new NSW Governments fishing policy






 NSW Liberals & Nationals recreational fishing policy: restoring the balance Written by Hon Duncan Gay MLC Tuesday, 22 February 2011 17:51 The NSW Liberals & Nationals Marine Parks policy, 'Restoring the Balance' outlines our positive, practical plans based on independent, scientific evidence to give local communities a proper say in decisions that affect their livelihood and lifestyle, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries Duncan Gay said today.

Mr Gay's comments were made today at Westport Park Boat Ramp, Park Street, Port Macquarie with the Nationals candidate for the Port Macquarie Electorate Leslie Williams. "The NSW Liberals & Nationals policy, 'Restoring the Balance', finds the right balance between allowing fishermen appropriate access to fishing spots and protecting the marine environment. "Our Policy, 'Restoring the Balance', will;

• Not abolish any of the existing six marine parks and continue our moratorium on the creation of new marine parks and fishing closures, pending the outcome of our independent scientific audit.
• Immediately commission an independent scientific audit of the effectiveness of existing zoning arrangements in meeting domestic and international commitments to the conservation of marine biodiversity.
• A separate audit to examine which lead agency (Fisheries or the Department of Environment and Climate Change) is more appropriate to manage Marine Parks.
• Trial appropriate recreational fishing techniques in marine parks under review.
• Expand the current Habitat Protection Zones within marine parks subject to the results of the scientific independent audit
• Local Community Social and Economic Impact Statements included in the audit
• Commit to removing pressure on our fish stocks and marine environment through a $16 million, 4-year commitment for a commercial fisherman buyout policy.
• Audit the current management of NSW Fishing Trust funds and the process by which trust funds are allocated
• Create a new Joint Recreational and Commercial Fishing Advisory
• Committee including stakeholders from the fishing industries
• Improve the awareness of anglers of zoning arrangements so fines are not handed out to unsuspecting people drifting into restricted areas.
• Improve the current system of compliance

"Fishermen in NSW have long suffered under NSW Labor's failed marine parks policy which was designed to achieve a political outcome rather than an environmental evidence-based outcome," said Mr Gay.

"The NSW Liberals & Nationals do not believe that Labor's approach of locking communities out of their waterways is the answer to protecting our marine environments.

"Marine parks as operated by the Keneally Labor Government concentrate solely on restricting fishing rather than addressing pollution, introduced species and diseases, some agricultural substances and inappropriate coastal development.

"Fishing is a hugely popular past time and an important part of the Australian way of life, NSW issues almost half a million recreational fishing licences each year.

"Unlike NSW Labor, who for 16 years has sold out fishermen in the name of Greens preferences, the NSW Liberals & Nationals policy finds the right balance between allowing recreational fishing and protecting our marine environments."

Nationals Candidate for Port Macquarie Leslie Williams said that, unlike the Keneally Labor Government, the NSW Liberals & Nationals understood that good environmental policy was that which found common ground between stakeholders and listening to community concerns.

"We firmly believe Marine Parks do not have to be established at the cost of recreational fishing; and conservation campaigners do not have to be pitted against fishing families," she said.

[Beast1965]

"Fishing the Secret Society". Is this what we are really about, do we have to lie about what we catch and take home or do you have illegal fish on board and need to hide the fact. We whinge about what the government is doing with respect to bans and green zones, but you aide them by saying you caught nothing. Wouldn't this infer that there are less fish out there and that they may need to extend tha bans or increase the green zones. Just because you are asked a question it doesn't mean the world is ending. These departments make the decisions based on information that is sourced by researchers (us) as we are out there fishing in different areas that they would not have the resources to complete so we are the best source of information. So if we mislead or lie to them then we are only hurting ourselves. The otherside is that if Fisheries think we are lying then we may come back to the ramps with other departments that possess search and seizure powers, do we really want that?

Why not be honest as lying gets you no where and in the end you may get caught out and lose the lot including your boat, car and anything else deemed to be used in the commiting of the offence.

I do not believe in lying and I only take legal fish so I have nothing to hide.

If I was Fisheries Minister I would be out every weekend checking fish stocks myself!

[Beast1965]

If I was Fisheries Minister I would be out every weekend checking fish stocks!

[PinHead]

2 sides to this I guess.

I have been one complaining about the rubbery figures used for the recent snapper closures. I am all in favour of rec anglers providing information to Fisheries so that at least there may be something tangible to start basing any future closures or bag/size limits on. There needs to be a "starting point" on the fish stocks and I guess we have a role to play in this.

The flip side is: the data collected has to be transparent for all to access...including us. Not just kept hidden away for Gvot agencies to use at their whim.

[Gazza]

"Fishing the Secret Society". Is this what we are really about, do we have to lie about what we catch and take home or do you have illegal fish on board and need to hide the fact. We whinge about what the government is doing with respect to bans and green zones, but you aide them by saying you caught nothing. Wouldn't this infer that there are less fish out there and that they may need to extend tha bans or increase the green zones. Just because you are asked a question it doesn't mean the world is ending. These departments make the decisions based on information that is sourced by researchers (us) as we are out there fishing in different areas that they would not have the resources to complete so we are the best source of information. So if we mislead or lie to them then we are only hurting ourselves. The otherside is that if Fisheries think we are lying then we may come back to the ramps with other departments that possess search and seizure powers, do we really want that?

Why not be honest as lying gets you no where and in the end you may get caught out and lose the lot including your boat, car and anything else deemed to be used in the commiting of the offence.

I do not believe in lying and I only take legal fish so I have nothing to hide.

If I was Fisheries Minister I would be out every weekend checking fish stocks myself!

Well beast, WHY do you assume, just because I do not care to be interrogated at a ramp, I am doing something illegal
Seems to me ,you have got caught up in the hyped up way the "NO" was phrased ......
"No we don't trust them with the information"

I'm happy with present 5/35 limits , IF somebody wants to search my boat and esky , they can.

If you want to get information that is useless , because it can be interpreted 2 ways with same info.
X fish caught , we're catching too many, so we're in trouble with the biomass.
X fish caught , we're not catching enough , so we're in trouble with the biomass.

Can't wait for the carpark shopping surveys to start....
Which shops did you go to ,what did you buy , which shop you going to now , how many items ,how much did you spend....

oh no, I just told them to get stuffed, I MUST have stolen property...call the cops

[Beast1965]

Gazza thanks for your comments but I believe they are taken out of context. What I am trying to get across is if we have nothing to hide then why shouldn't we open with fisheries. Just because people think their comments will be used to increase bans or green zones then they be very wrong this might prove that there are plenty of fish out there and these bans or green zones be reduced. We don't have to be pesimistic and think the worst if we are asked a question. At the moment we have a lot of restrictions placed on us by the government and we are concerned about how it effects us but maybe this information may benefit us. Once again Gazza I appreciate your feedback, but I am optimistic that these surveys will help us in the long run and open new opportunities for the recos.

[Gazza]

Voluntary "anything" is fine by me beast , now I just need to get over the BS Biomass data , that the Fisheries dudes tried to use to have us choose to pay $90/70

5/35 is fine by me , part-Feb and March(only)if needed at all is also fine , to gently reduce tonnage taken.