Nope CI , no Reccatchcard necessary....no "no catchcard" fines either.
Regulate by bag/size if necessary
Re: Snapper Ban time: will Wally wimp out to the Greens ... what's your guess ???
Nope CI , no Reccatchcard necessary....no "no catchcard" fines either.
Regulate by bag/size if necessary
Gazza,
can you point me in the direction of any research that shows bag and size limits have a positive long term affect on stocks ?
Not that I disagree, just need to see it.
If we rec fishoes are to demand good science and data, we must participate in that process in some way. For as long as we do not participate, we will always be behind the eight ball and skeptical of results. Rec fishoes stewardship of the seas requires us to become involved in its management. We owe that much to the fishery.
LP.
.
.
.
.
.
Kingfisher Painting Solutions:- Domestic and Commercial.
For further information, contact details, quotes or advice - Click Here
The last two posts from Keith and Phill are the best advice for the future of recreational angling that i've seen on here in a long time. It offers part of a very real long term solution here, recreational anglers MUST participate in the collection of data to help indicate the health of the fishery. No-one will like the additional regulation/work, but the recreational sector is the only fishing sector that DOES NOT provide data for analysis, yet is the one that makes the most noise when the regulations are applied.
As Keith has stated, the regulations are currently being created on a precautionary basis because there is no information, I say lets give them all the info they need and try to accurately assess the health of the fisheries.
This does diverge a little from the real intent of this thread started by Mark, but again prompts me to ask ...........
WHAT IS THE LNP'S POLICY ON RECREATIONAL ANGLING?
WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE LNP'S SCIENCE BEHIND SHAPING POLICY THAT AFFECT ALL FISHING SECTORS (RECREATIONAL/CHARTER/PROFESSIONAL)?
IS THE LNP'S SCIENCE GOING TO BE TRANSPARENT SO THAT ALL FISHING SECTORS CAN REVIEW THE PROCESS?
Paddles,
I agree with you somewhat in that yes Rec Anglers need to provide comprehensive data. But then again we could be on a hiding to nothing like the past. Take GBRMP as an example. Then add to that, that Fisheries scientists will not disregard CPUE for Rec Data, even though if we gave them 100% data of all Rec Effort and Catches over time, that CPUE would be one of the most useless pieces of data available. No matter what the actual fishery was doing even if it was improving exponentially the Rec Angler CPUE would still send alarm bells ringing. They will not settle for "total annual take over time" as this could be "Considered" Hyper-Stable. So what options do we have?
And also remember that Rec Anglers are making the most noise because they are the ones copping the pine apples the hardest. Remember fisheries is there to look after the commercial sector.
Keith also needs to remember that for this last assessment that only Gold Coast CPUE data was used. The same group of Charter Operators that are notorious for caring more about the fuel burn than fish over the side (there are exceptions). Along with some silting reefs and bludgers sitting right next door(NSW)with outrageous size and bag limits flogging Snapper stocks. And yet this data wasn't considered Hyper-Depleted by our esteemed scientists and was completely contradictory to the Commercial CPUE (the only stake holder that requires a good CPUE in this fishery to survive) so other data was used that was more suited to the "sky is falling" argument of the Gold Coast Charter Operators and their subsequent data.
But back to the question: Will Wallace whimp out to the greens? My answer is YES and he already has in a back room deal. Thats how Labor does business.
My question to Mark is: If under independent review, ANY of the previous Labor governments (Beatie or Bligh) restrictions on recreational fishing are shown to be less than transparent/lacking in solid science. Will the QLD LNP immediately overturn the affected regulations IN FULL until the science is transparent and conclusive?
I know we have heard some great "Bread Crumbing" from you about one line, one hook in Green-Zones until it is settled, but IMHO if the science is not solid, every aspect of the regulation that pertains to it (Green-Zones) or otherwise should be repealed until there is conclusive science.
So?
Cheers
Chris
Democracy: Simply a system that allows the 51% to steal from the other 49%.
Who are we preserving the fishery for? Nice, warm and fuzzy to think for our future generations.
I believe our politicians will always serve the commercial fishery interests and extract as much $$$ out of it as possible right here and now and keep us under a rock as much as possible about the real truths and broad preservation of the stock. I also believe that our politicians are very intimidated and influenced by the powerful and wealthy commercial fishing group.
They know that we will still buy our boats and stuff and struggle on regardless because of our love of our pastime.
The only thing we reccos are preserving it for is commercial interests as far as I can see.
Very disturbing for me while at a local Seafood Market recently they were giving away 100's of kilos of local reef fish fillets including plenty of Snapper, obviously an over supply that they were going to either dump or give away being the lesser of the two evils. I naturally grabbed a couple of kilos of fillets while I was there although it didn't sit well with me and there was nothing wrong with it either although not as fresh as self caught fish. I just didn't want to see it dumped.
Then I was thinking about how much of the stuff that you see at the markets gets dumped every week once their customers are supplied?
I was also wondering how I am legally with these extra fish in my possession over and above what I am allowed to have from my catch. Am I correct in assuming that one can buy as much Snapper and other fish or be given it for free in this case as you like. How would that be fair? Like if you are so inclined can you have 100 Snapper in your coldroom with no other investment in the local economy so long as you bought it from a commercial fisherman, while the guy like me who spends $100,000 or more on boat, tackle electronics is only allowed to have 5 in possession. If you buy it do you have to keep receipts for as long as it's in your possession? Or in my case no reciept because it was a give away. It just all seems so complicated.
Anyway regardless of the above it was sickening to see just a small example of the commercial waste at a time when the fishery is deemed to be under pressure. I think that they are all just playing with us.
We rec fishos with a conscience about our fishing and doing the right thing would be a joke to the commercial guys and their political pockets I am sure.
I won't believe anything else until I see real signs of governments curbing commercial activity in sensitive areas such as Moreton Bay and without the huge BS compensation payouts they seem so willing to give these people when any other small business through Govt bungling or policy changes just goes down the gurgler with a "to bad so sad, not one cent". attitude..
Re: Snapper Ban time: will Wally wimp out to the Greens ... what's your guess ???
BS LPOriginally Posted by Lucky_Phill
...l-o-o-k at EVERY States , bag/size Regs
...$100's of Millions in science/Fisheries/data
invested by taxpayers ,of which I am but 1
IF some science dkhd , says "we need to protect the BIG Breeders" with a "Closed period", well protect the BIG Breeders then
I'm saying "adjust the C&K limit to 30~50cms/5 bag" , during that time.
That's all good to call that Gazza, but where is the money for policing this short term measure " during that time ".
Further, yes, all other states do have size and bag ,limits.... but here's the clincher....... those regs get changed every couple of years... why ? because they are NOT a long term solution, they are simply a quick fix that someone has decided will be of benefit.
We are going off track again, so.... here's a suggestion / question.
Wild stocking. ( snapper )
The details of breeding etc are well documented. Larger fish produce more eggs etc and the survival rate is X%......
Currently, the science says, wild stocking is not viable......... What does this mean ?... It means a wild stocking program cannot be undertaken because there is NO money to do it. Not that it won't work, it's just that the government of the day is not prepared to do the hard yards and invest in our Fisheries future. They would rather bust the balls of the rec angler as we are an EASY TARGET.
Wild Stocking IS viable if you look at the big picture. We have the technology, let's use it.
You want to have an increased bio-mass and sustainable snapper fishery..... ?
Do something about the Moreton Bay trawl industry, expand the artificial reef program and invest in wild stocking. Do this and in 5 - 10 years you will not need " independent peer reviewed science " because the fishery will be healthy and more than sustainable.
Is this my answer ?
Well, it beats the crap outta assumptions about size limits, closures, slot limits etc.
IMO.
LP.
.
.
.
.
Kingfisher Painting Solutions:- Domestic and Commercial.
For further information, contact details, quotes or advice - Click Here
Mark
Barry here from Greenvale days!
Lets hope you all in LNP dont snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and win the next election.
Thanks for wading in here and yes like the boys are saying they want concrete policy well before the election, so we all know exactly where the LNP stands. And not a Ju Liar promise, which is backflipped straight after the election.
One thought here would be to have Green Zones that are rotated areas, not locking down areas forever, due to the extra pressure that is place on non Green areas as a result of existing zones. The green Zones up in The Pumicestone Pasage would be a case in point.
Cheers mark
Flatzie
I think one of the not so known perpetrators of current Labour policy in these matters is Anna Blighs husband, not just the greens. From reports that surface from time to time he is pretty green apparently.
Flatzie
I disagree about government protecting commercial fishing - eg A NSW labour government introuced rec licence which was used to buy out commercial licences & lock them out of most of the estuary systems ....... A very positive move .
In NSW commercial floating kingfish traps were banned & the kingfish stocks have been recovering nicely.
Then we have the NT governments recognising the value of recreational barramundi fishery ...... the banning of commercial fishing in several major river systems followed ...... another good move.
So clearly some good decisions are made by politicians ...... as long as they are well advised
Chris
Give a man a fish & he will eat for a day !
Teach him how to fish
& he will sit in a boat - & drink beer all day!
TEAM MOJIKO
A lot of very important points being made. I take it all onboard as part of our consultation with various fishing sectors. As I travel to each region of Qld I am also meeting with fishers and considering their local and regional perspectives. Unlike the current govt, we are genuinely consulting with fishers so that our policies will produce practical outcomes that work for people, not play politics with fishers. On the issue of consultation, I found it bemusing that the first two decisions of the new Qld fisheries minister (after promising more consultation with fishers) was to cancel the NQ port consultation meetings and to cancel the MACS (one of the main sources of feedback from fishers to govt). The short of it is that this govt has stopped listening to fishers because the Greens have them under the thumb and the Greens do not respect the rights of fishers to fish. Sustainable fishing to many in the Green-Labor alliance means "NO FISHING".
As I said, we are carefully consulting fishers, taking advice from key stakeholder groups and formulating policy that will be released once the election is called. If we do any sooner, the typical thing is Labor attack it, then months later rebadge our ideas as their policy, then claim the LNP is policy free. But we will release policies prior to the election - policies that will make it clear where we are going in producing a sustainable future for our state's fisheries while protecting the right to fish.
All of the discussion on AUSFISH is useful feedback.
Tight lines,
Mark
Good points with regards to licensing and government input NAGG.
I'm starting to believe that the best way for recreational anglers to claim ownership to a "slice" of the total fishery pie is to introduce a recreational angling license here in queensland and also to start reporting the recreational catch. This will have many benefits for us, it will provide very real data of catches and in conjunction with data from commercial and charter operators it will indicate the health of the total fishery (where currently that data seems to be mostly just a best guess from conservation/green biased groups biased towards heavily restrict fishing altogether), it will generate some income for fishery management in the interests of the recreational angler and like has been done in NSW maybe generate income for the purpose of buying out commercial licenses but it will also give a clear indication to government of just how big a group of people we really are.
Rotating green zones would be a disaster IMO Flatzie. The idea of shifting fishing pressure every so many years is quite sound but the issues surrounding awareness of where the zones are at any given time would bring it all down in a screaming heap. The misunderstanding of exactly where a green zone starts and ends has caused many fishos to cop a conviction for an honest mistake. This would occur much more frequently with moving zones. It probably takes a year or 2 for the message to filter out to the majority of fishos where current green zones are, by changing these every few years it just causes more confusion, costs fishos heaps more in fines and would mean the government would be spending a heap more of our tax $s on re-educating, new signage, maps , TV ads etc.
On another note about wild stocking- the problem I see with wild stocking in an open system ,apart from the huge numbers of fish needed to be stocked to make any noticable difference, is the protien required to get these fish to this stage. Nutritional requirements of fish mean they need high levels of protien- from other fish. The approximate rate of energy conversion in any food chain is 1:10 so to produce 1kg of fish it would need to eat 10kg of fish meal. So producing huge numbers of fish for restocking the ocean would mean that a much larger amount of bait such as pilchards, sardines etc, need to be extracted from the ocean. Past fisheries collapses in Peru due to fishing down the food chain such as this demonstrate that it is far from sustainable. Robbing peter to pay paul effectively.
Cheers,
This maybe so for bring a fish to a certain size ( ie... table size / legal limit ), but in the case of Snapper, there is quite good data that states the size of the fish will only need to be " sprat " or " fry " ( I think the term is )... roughly 20 -30mm.
At this size, they are released into the system where natural attrition occurs.
Do not take this as gospel but a rough idea.
1 snapper lays 3 million eggs and attrition is about 95%.. = 150,000 hopefully reaching breeding age / size.
stocking and recouping of say 20 Snapper only. That puts about 3 million snapper into the system.
IF, for arguments sake, the attrition is 99%...the above calculations still put 600,000 snapper into the system.... sometimes 2 or 3 times in a year .
The attrition rate due to the Moreton Bay Trawl effort, is unknown, but first hand , reliable anecdotal evidence points to a heavy chunk of the attrition rate.
Are we playing with mother nature by Wild Stocking ?
We are certainly playing with mother nature by fishing, or is that the intended fate of the species ?
There is a term used in agriculture..... sowing. Sow the seeds and harvest the rewards. The word " Harvest " is used by FQ to describe the commercial take. Funny that the commercial sector does not " sow ". In fact, no sector does, albiet the freshwater impoundments. And how good is that fishery ?
Food for thought people, food for thought.
LP.
.
.
.
.
.
I will attempt to find the data and get it up.
Last edited by Lucky_Phill; 23-06-2011 at 03:28 PM.
Kingfisher Painting Solutions:- Domestic and Commercial.
For further information, contact details, quotes or advice - Click Here
Yep Phill at just past settlement then the fish meal input would be minimal to non-existant (use of algae and zooplankton at that size). I guess the issues of stocking at that size is the high mortality rate, which would be neigh on impossible to quantify. I imagine mortality due to predation would be huge. More variation in physical conditions than they experience in tanks would also knock many over. But that is not to say it wont work-it may be a case of dipping the toe in the water and trying it out. Although the costs involved would probably prevent this as it is quite experimental.
As for playing with nature- well introducing an endemic species into a habitat we are taking them from should not be an issue IMO. Lack of genetic variation from the breeding of 1000000s of hatchlings from a few select breeders (even if it is 200 broodstock) may have consequences. The ol blue eye barra that were released in their 10s of 1000s up in the Hinchinbrook passage will be a good case study to see if 2 distinct populations co-exist or inter-breed and if it affects the fitness of the natural stock. Anyway certainly worth looking into but I think you are right- at the moment the cost is too high and the theory to experimental for any pollie to seriously consider.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
