New bag and size limits as of today

[Noelm]

How big were these Mulloway when release to swim into the net?

[banshee]

How big were these Mulloway when release to swim into the net?

Fingerlings,not saying these are destined for immediate destruction but the netters in the Richmond have been known to net two tonne in a night.......They've even been seen trying to hound schools out of the rec haven into nets set up just off the haven boundary.I would not support restocking of any commercially sort after species with rec money.

[Lucky_Phill]

The only gripe I have with our (nsw) set up is that we stocked a shit load of Mulloway,paid for out of the rec trust fund,into the Richmond so they could swim into a commercial net.

And this is yet another example why I oppose a Rec fishing licence in Qld.

LP

[Noelm]

Fingerlings,not saying these are destined for immediate destruction but the netters in the Richmond have been known to net two tonne in a night.......They've even been seen trying to hound schools out of the rec haven into nets set up just off the haven boundary.I would not support restocking of any commercially sort after species with rec money.

Sounds more like what someone was told that someone heard in the pub.

[Lovey80]

What do you think would happen if they lock up other areas but increased the bag limit in yours......hope you like crowds. Might see a few more boats on those glass out days.

That line of thinking was certainly dismissed when we brought it up concerning green zones in Moreton Bay. I didn’t see Fisheries protesting the EPA’s green zones plan at the time.

Im not even suggesting that they lock areas like Moreton bay up. But management arrangements such as changes in MLS for area specific areas is a must as the shallows of MB negate the argument of post capture mortality to a large degree. Those measures would only be temporarily detrimental to recreational fishermen for a few years in the most heavily fished area until those smaller fish hit 40 or 45cm. Then things can go back to normal except that now we have a larger percentage of the biomass in that area hitting a larger size before being caught. There are 3-4-5 years of extra recruitment before fish are taken. The number of larger models adding to recruitment increases (though nothing has really been done to scientifically test if this is an issue in Snapper)

What i I am saying though is that these surveys and how Fisheries collects their recreational data is terrible. Mathew even admitted this in his summary of the Biomass assessment. If 90% of boat ramp surveys and phone polls are coming from people that fish a heavily fished area such as MB and the Gold Coast then use that data to extrapolate out for the rest of the QLD fishery then of course average sizes and catch rates are going to drop and show a much bleaker picture of the fishery.

[Think of it this way. Imagine we banned fishing in half of the Barra dams for a decade. Then did a biomass assessment of just the dams that are fished and then doubled it. Would that be a fair indicator of the total biomass of barramundi in enclosed impoundments? Let’s take that further. Let’s assume that Barra does breed in fresh water and then give fishing licences at a ratio of 1:10 for half the dams but still did the biomass assessment based off of the data taken from the dams that had 10 times the fishermen. Would that be a fair assessment of the impoundment Barra biomass?]

Those same MLS regulations aren’t going to help the biomass in areas that are in deep water. You are better off allowing Recs to take their bag of 35cm and above fish as a way of encouraging them not to upgrade. Once they have their 4 fish per person they can move on to other ground that isn’t Snapper. Telling them they can only have 8 total per boat is a red flag to a bull to maximise the total KG within that 8 fish. Ie what I said earlier about making sure all 8 fish on board are as big as they can take within the regulations. That’s going to be a lot of dead fish due to barotrauma.

Above all of that is the importance of making Snapper/Pearly/Trag or any other species that needs decent data on it, mandatory reporting for recreationals. With that is a stable system in place throughout the monitoring period to accurately assess catches in the fishery. No point bringing it in a year or four after the last spate of regulations changes then using some BS monte-Carlo or what ever model to predict how recruitment was to account for the changes in regulations throughout the time period.

[banshee]

And this is yet another example why I oppose a Rec fishing licence in Qld.

LP

I personally think the rec fishing licence is probably the best thing that has ever happened for NSW anglers.I believe our model is unique in as much as all the monies raised barring 10% for administration is spent on the fishery by us and not funnelled into consolidated revenue.We have a vested interest in the fishery which in turn makes us genuine stakeholders,if there is a study we have input as to who is consulted,likewise,when the bill for said study turns up we pay our share......No one flicks us a bone and tells us to piss off,if bad decisions are made with this money we have no one to blame but our selves.

[efc]

Are there any stats on the percentage of commercially caught fish consumed?

[banshee]

Sounds more like what someone was told that someone heard in the pub.

yeah probably.

[scottar]

That line of thinking was certainly dismissed when we brought it up concerning green zones in Moreton Bay. I didn’t see Fisheries protesting the EPA’s green zones plan at the time.

Im not even suggesting that they lock areas like Moreton bay up. But management arrangements such as changes in MLS for area specific areas is a must as the shallows of MB negate the argument of post capture mortality to a large degree. Those measures would only be temporarily detrimental to recreational fishermen for a few years in the most heavily fished area until those smaller fish hit 40 or 45cm. Then things can go back to normal except that now we have a larger percentage of the biomass in that area hitting a larger size before being caught. There are 3-4-5 years of extra recruitment before fish are taken. The number of larger models adding to recruitment increases (though nothing has really been done to scientifically test if this is an issue in Snapper)

What i I am saying though is that these surveys and how Fisheries collects their recreational data is terrible. Mathew even admitted this in his summary of the Biomass assessment. If 90% of boat ramp surveys and phone polls are coming from people that fish a heavily fished area such as MB and the Gold Coast then use that data to extrapolate out for the rest of the QLD fishery then of course average sizes and catch rates are going to drop and show a much bleaker picture of the fishery.

[Think of it this way. Imagine we banned fishing in half of the Barra dams for a decade. Then did a biomass assessment of just the dams that are fished and then doubled it. Would that be a fair indicator of the total biomass of barramundi in enclosed impoundments? Let’s take that further. Let’s assume that Barra does breed in fresh water and then give fishing licences at a ratio of 1:10 for half the dams but still did the biomass assessment based off of the data taken from the dams that had 10 times the fishermen. Would that be a fair assessment of the impoundment Barra biomass?]

Those same MLS regulations aren’t going to help the biomass in areas that are in deep water. You are better off allowing Recs to take their bag of 35cm and above fish as a way of encouraging them not to upgrade. Once they have their 4 fish per person they can move on to other ground that isn’t Snapper. Telling them they can only have 8 total per boat is a red flag to a bull to maximise the total KG within that 8 fish. Ie what I said earlier about making sure all 8 fish on board are as big as they can take within the regulations. That’s going to be a lot of dead fish due to barotrauma.

Above all of that is the importance of making Snapper/Pearly/Trag or any other species that needs decent data on it, mandatory reporting for recreationals. With that is a stable system in place throughout the monitoring period to accurately assess catches in the fishery. No point bringing it in a year or four after the last spate of regulations changes then using some BS monte-Carlo or what ever model to predict how recruitment was to account for the changes in regulations throughout the time period.

Your example has a flaw. By using dams where fish populations are not free to move and intermingle you have effectively created separate genetic stocks - thus requiring separate management . We are dealing with a single genetic stock. Where are the nursery zones for the offshore schools? Moreton Bay? As to MLS increases - the models were run - Matthew showed them to me. There was an improvement but not quick enough obviously for the management team to select that as a preferred option. The best options were reduction in fishing mortality - the less fish killed every year the quicker the stocks recovered. They have an end game - the trick is getting there as quickly as possible without creating too much havoc I guess. I agree we need better catch data - but we will have to pay for it. Cold hard facts - it costs money and on the list of important shit government deals with - catch reporting is way down the list. If we want it, we need to start lobbying people like Sunfish and the like and probably get serious about a license as a way to raise the money. As to the mindset - guess that comes down to the individual. I know I passed the comment initially, but after sitting down and going through things with someone that has actually done a fair bit of research my attitude has changed.

[Lovey80]

Your example has a flaw. By using dams where fish populations are not free to move and intermingle you have effectively created separate genetic stocks - thus requiring separate management . We are dealing with a single genetic stock. Where are the nursery zones for the offshore schools? Moreton Bay? As to MLS increases - the models were run - Matthew showed them to me. There was an improvement but not quick enough obviously for the management team to select that as a preferred option. The best options were reduction in fishing mortality - the less fish killed every year the quicker the stocks recovered. They have an end game - the trick is getting there as quickly as possible without creating too much havoc I guess. I agree we need better catch data - but we will have to pay for it. Cold hard facts - it costs money and on the list of important shit government deals with - catch reporting is way down the list. If we want it, we need to start lobbying people like Sunfish and the like and probably get serious about a license as a way to raise the money. As to the mindset - guess that comes down to the individual. I know I passed the comment initially, but after sitting down and going through things with someone that has actually done a fair bit of research my attitude has changed.

My example doesn’t have a flaw because you focused on the wrong part of my point. The vast majority of the Rec Data is coming from Recs that mainly hit Moreton bay and the GC. Those areas have area specific problems. Moreton bay and the Gold Coast are easily the most heavily fished areas of the state. So taking that data and extrapolating it to represent the whole biomass is going to show a far bleaker picture than is really the case.

The Pro Data showed again that the biomass was stable. Those people won’t be hitting the same areas as the vast majority of Recs and Gold Coast charter operators do. That tells me that there probably is biomass issues in MB and GC and I’m not disputing that. But outside of that, where is the evidence to suggest there’s any real issue at all?

I bet the models didn’t show MLS increases for just MB area?

After the last RRFF review it was recommended by the rec sector and FQ that more reliable data was needed. Even this review states that. Yet these guys are forced to use some mathematic model to make up for that huge short fall on the input side and are having to make some pretty big assumptions.

Why did we all all of a sudden back in 2012 begin to focus so heavily on “virgin biomass”???

[Dirtyfuzz]

So I just assumed that the snapper closure for 1 month applied to everyone however just reading the rules and it seems the charter and commercial are exempt, is this true, sorry if this has been mentioned earlier!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aussie123]

So I just assumed that the snapper closure for 1 month applied to everyone however just reading the rules and it seems the charter and commercial are exempt, is this true, sorry if this has been mentioned earlier!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Charter only are exempt. the pros have the closure period the same as the recs now.

[Dirtyfuzz]

I read that charter companies are exempt from the boat limit however no mention of seasonal closure applying to the charter or commercial sector


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[scottar]

As a charter boat patron you are still a recreational angler - the dropping of the extended charter bag limit exemption is in the rec section on DAF's website. The only thing that doesn't apply is the boat limit. The closure is for everyone.

[bluefin59]

Yep charter operators are still in negotiations with the government about some sort of compensation for the closure period as it’s the peak snapper chasing time for them , I believe some change to the rules may come before then though . Matt