New bag and size limits as of today

[Lucky_Phill]

I am sure we all know the data used by fisheries is still the best available... available is the key word.

The Precautionary Principle is again the driving force behind changes. Imagine the outcry if the Snapper fishery collapsed ???????? Who would get the blame.... FQ of course for not being pro-active and yet here we are again hammering them for being pro-active and not re-active.

I have a differing point of view.

Imagine our fishery is a 100 acre paddock ( we'll digress and say we are harvesting cattle ) and 10% of that paddock is cleared for feed, growing, breeding and said harvesting. Obviously that 10 acres will only sustain so much bio-mass and if we eat away at that bio-mass, it will reduce to a point of ???? But we have 90 acres of paddock that the cattle can't feed and breed in. What do we do ? As a farmer we would clear more land.... that is, make available more habitat, for the cattle to do their thing and also allow us to increase the bio-mass of our said " fishery "... farm.

WHY THE F### are we not doing this in our marine environments ?

All we seem to do is lower the bar, time after time.... band-aid approach.

Here is the kicker.......... if Qld Fisheries and their scientists are only given 10 acres to work with.... the result is always going to be POO !

The Federal and State Governments need to act ( 20 years ago really )... NOW. !!!!! Artificial reef deployments need to roll out in big numbers far and wide along our coastline. Increase the available paddock and you will increase the bio-mass... Science 101.......... ><> IMO.

Add to this, a fiscally robust wild stocking program and our Grand kids will be off the " Ice " and into fishing so much, they can't afford drugs or new iphones, or whatever.....buying too much tackle, rods and reels and boats , and cars and... holy crap batman, it is massive economical benefit to Queensland and it's fragile fishery.

I would like to see a QF scientist produce a white paper on an Artificial Reef program of mammoth proportions. ><>

cheers LP

[Lovey80]

I am sure we all know the data used by fisheries is still the best available... available is the key word.

The Precautionary Principle is again the driving force behind changes. Imagine the outcry if the Snapper fishery collapsed ???????? Who would get the blame.... FQ of course for not being pro-active and yet here we are again hammering them for being pro-active and not re-active.

I have a differing point of view.

Imagine our fishery is a 100 acre paddock ( we'll digress and say we are harvesting cattle ) and 10% of that paddock is cleared for feed, growing, breeding and said harvesting. Obviously that 10 acres will only sustain so much bio-mass and if we eat away at that bio-mass, it will reduce to a point of ???? But we have 90 acres of paddock that the cattle can't feed and breed in. What do we do ? As a farmer we would clear more land.... that is, make available more habitat, for the cattle to do their thing and also allow us to increase the bio-mass of our said " fishery "... farm.

WHY THE F### are we not doing this in our marine environments ?

All we seem to do is lower the bar, time after time.... band-aid approach.

Here is the kicker.......... if Qld Fisheries and their scientists are only given 10 acres to work with.... the result is always going to be POO !

The Federal and State Governments need to act ( 20 years ago really )... NOW. !!!!! Artificial reef deployments need to roll out in big numbers far and wide along our coastline. Increase the available paddock and you will increase the bio-mass... Science 101.......... ><> IMO.

Add to this, a fiscally robust wild stocking program and our Grand kids will be off the " Ice " and into fishing so much, they can't afford drugs or new iphones, or whatever.....buying too much tackle, rods and reels and boats , and cars and... holy crap batman, it is massive economical benefit to Queensland and it's fragile fishery.

I would like to see a QF scientist produce a white paper on an Artificial Reef program of mammoth proportions. ><>

cheers LP

On the artificial reefs, I totally agree with. We have 2 Army Engineer Regiments and a Construction Squadron in QLD alone that could be put to good use in peace time building these things. They already have a significant capability to do this and maintain that capability through training exercises. Lets get some money available to them to cast and deploy reef balls or similar in Moreton bay and close to shore all up the coast. They even have commercial divers imbedded within the Regiments.

On the collapse. They told us the last time this circus went around that the Snapper fishery is not at risk of collapse due to the measures we already have in place (35cm x 5). Then they went and reduced the bag to 4 and only allowed 1 large fish (another moron Fisheries minister that listened to no one). Less than 10 years later the Biomass has reduced further? All based on crap data? They admitted the data was garbage last time. It was one of the strong requests of the recreational sector last time to introduce a mandatory catch card. Here we are 10 years later and as we predicted last time, the models they use GUARANTEE that the data will show a reduction in Biomass the next time this rock show turns up.

It doesn't matter how angry we get now, because NOTHING we say is going to change anything. We knew 10 years ago that we were going to be bent over and screwed perpetually every single time they run their models. Here is a fact that is indisputable. If all Australian's had of boycotted eating and fishing for snapper for the last 10 years. This current assessment would still show that the biomass has declined.

That is how much of a joke Fisheries Queensland has become.

[Lovey80]

Jeez that’s a bit harsh.

Mathew. Can you tell us if anything resembling the below from the previous stock assessment was used to determine the recreational catch and with it the reduction on what you believe is the virgin biomass?

Recreational
landings from the RFISH surveys were extrapolated from existing estimates to 1946
by using the trend in the number of large vessel (> 6 m) registrations from 1986–2002
(obtained from Queensland Department of Transport), which averaged 4% per year
and was linear.

AND

estimates of total Queensland recreational landings (kg) from 1997, 1999 and 2002
(RFISH data, Queensland Department of Primary Industries) and a national survey in
2000 from which we obtained an estimate of recreational snapper landings for
Queensland. The RFISH and national surveys used an angler diary program and
random telephone survey to expand diary catches to the total number of anglers who
fished snapper in Queensland (RFISH 2001).

[chris69]

Don't be too harsh with Mathew lovey80 he might be the guy that cultures and grows out snapper fingerlings to repopulate snapper stock numbers in SEQ.

[TheRealPoMo]

If fisheries really wanted further reductions, then just drop it to 3 per person limit, so ALL fishers feel the effect equally, whether in a 3.6m tinny or a 8m moored vessel.

This^^^^

....and I don't even have a boat anymore so include land based.

Take what you need for the day and leave.


Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Matthew Campbell]

Mathew. Can you tell us if anything resembling the below from the previous stock assessment was used to determine the recreational catch and with it the reduction on what you believe is the virgin biomass?

Recreational
landings from the RFISH surveys were extrapolated from existing estimates to 1946
by using the trend in the number of large vessel (> 6 m) registrations from 1986–2002
(obtained from Queensland Department of Transport), which averaged 4% per year
and was linear.

AND

estimates of total Queensland recreational landings (kg) from 1997, 1999 and 2002
(RFISH data, Queensland Department of Primary Industries) and a national survey in
2000 from which we obtained an estimate of recreational snapper landings for
Queensland. The RFISH and national surveys used an angler diary program and
random telephone survey to expand diary catches to the total number of anglers who
fished snapper in Queensland (RFISH 2001).

Chris
The stock assessment document is here:

http://era.daf.qld.gov.au/id/eprint/...ment2018V3.pdf

[Volvo]

Fish studies , Bag limits ,Area closures for me is kind of described like how our water resourses are today !! , farmers and Towns as well as Cities starting to ration out the stuff yet years ago it was advised we should have back dammed our Country !! , you know , kinda like stocking up for hard times ..
We are so close to a recession so WHY NOT!!??? Borrow , create jobs which will create spending and knowing water may well be the knife that kills our Farmers or a cause of heartache in the future for all , why not act upon it ..
We know how much flow off there is come our Summers up north , how hard would it be to detour part of it !!?? or allow extra to be caught and kept in captivety till needed ..
I know this has nothing to do with Fish regs etc but when people say our Governements arent listening regarding the future whether it be Fish Stocks or water ??, maybe someone needs to listen more closely .
Too old to know any other way of putting it except everything seems too hard for our pollies except votes and there may lay the secret??..

[scottar]

I am sure we all know the data used by fisheries is still the best available... available is the key word.

The Precautionary Principle is again the driving force behind changes. Imagine the outcry if the Snapper fishery collapsed ???????? Who would get the blame.... FQ of course for not being pro-active and yet here we are again hammering them for being pro-active and not re-active.

I have a differing point of view.

Imagine our fishery is a 100 acre paddock ( we'll digress and say we are harvesting cattle ) and 10% of that paddock is cleared for feed, growing, breeding and said harvesting. Obviously that 10 acres will only sustain so much bio-mass and if we eat away at that bio-mass, it will reduce to a point of ???? But we have 90 acres of paddock that the cattle can't feed and breed in. What do we do ? As a farmer we would clear more land.... that is, make available more habitat, for the cattle to do their thing and also allow us to increase the bio-mass of our said " fishery "... farm.

WHY THE F### are we not doing this in our marine environments ?

All we seem to do is lower the bar, time after time.... band-aid approach.

Here is the kicker.......... if Qld Fisheries and their scientists are only given 10 acres to work with.... the result is always going to be POO !

The Federal and State Governments need to act ( 20 years ago really )... NOW. !!!!! Artificial reef deployments need to roll out in big numbers far and wide along our coastline. Increase the available paddock and you will increase the bio-mass... Science 101.......... ><> IMO.

Add to this, a fiscally robust wild stocking program and our Grand kids will be off the " Ice " and into fishing so much, they can't afford drugs or new iphones, or whatever.....buying too much tackle, rods and reels and boats , and cars and... holy crap batman, it is massive economical benefit to Queensland and it's fragile fishery.

I would like to see a QF scientist produce a white paper on an Artificial Reef program of mammoth proportions. ><>

cheers LP

I have edited this post as a lot of it's content was based upon information that was incorrect as told to me. Yes there are improvements that could be made to the science but there is a lot more taken into consideration than I ever thought. If anyone has any interest, get in contact with Matthew via email.

[scottar]

So we are told we share the snapper stock on the east coast with NSW - cool - take it at face value. Then the report - which is one of two that FQ reference as their "evidence" of depleted stock lists Qld stock as "depleted" and yet NSW fisheries utilising partly the same data - the same integrated stock assessment is referenced in relation to both states, lists their stock as "sustainable". Something fishy going on there. Pun intended.

https://www.fish.gov.au/report/230-S...nd7AK4hBTKpHrA

[Lovey80]

Chris
The stock assessment document is here:

http://era.daf.qld.gov.au/id/eprint/...ment2018V3.pdf

So that’s a yes.

Recreational effort
For population modelling, prediction of recreational harvest or fishing effort for non-survey years was required. Based on the suggestion by Dr Francis in the independent review of snapper stock assessment in Campbell et al. (2009), a history of recreational harvests was predicted based on a constructed history of fishing. This involved joining historical information on boat registrations

[Dirtyfuzz]

This^^^^

....and I don't even have a boat anymore so include land based.

Take what you need for the day and leave.


Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

No good if you like to head out wide solo most of the time and prefer a larger boat for safety


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[billfisher]

So we are told we share the snapper stock on the east coast with NSW - cool - take it at face value. Then the report - which is one of two that FQ reference as their "evidence" of depleted stock lists Qld stock as "depleted" and yet NSW fisheries utilising partly the same data - the same integrated stock assessment is referenced in relation to both states, lists their stock as "sustainable". Something fishy going on there. Pun intended.

https://www.fish.gov.au/report/230-S...nd7AK4hBTKpHrA

Well it's not too hard to fathom. A lot of the effort has been removed from NSW waters and monitoring of things like catch per effort, size and age structure shows stocks are on the way up. From your link:

Commercial and recreational catch and fishing effort are at historically low levels in New South Wales. Commercial landings during 2016–17 were approximately 170 t, lower than the 10 year average of 245 t, and substantially lower than during the early 1980s when commercial landings approached 1 000 t per year. The number of days reported fish trapping when Snapper were landed has declined from 4 790 in 2009–10 to 3 226 in 2016–17, largely due to management driven reforms to the sector. The recreational harvest of Snapper in New South Wales declined from approximately 250 000 fish in 2000–01 to approximately 185 000 fish during 2013–14, and effort also declined markedly during this period [West et al. 2015). Trends in the size and age compositions in landed catches suggest population rebuilding from around 2008 onwards, with continual increases in the average sizes and ages of fish in commercial landings [Wortmann et al. 2018]. This indicates that the stock in New South Wales waters is increasing under existing levels of harvest. This level of fishing mortality is unlikely to cause the biological stock to become recruitment impaired.
On the basis of the evidence provided above, Snapper in New South Wales is classified as a sustainable stock.

[castlemaine]

I struggle with the current regulations let alone change it with little announcement.
Anyone smell an election date coming up,
Kissing up to the Greens, with this one, and Anastasia Palache visiting North Queensland.

[scottar]

I struggle with the current regulations let alone change it with little announcement.
Anyone smell an election date coming up,
Kissing up to the Greens, with this one, and Anastasia Palache visiting North Queensland.

And her alleged corrupt deputy trying to garnish support by stepping on the toes of insurance companies over unsettled claims - which in itself isn't a bad thing - just the timing smells worse than a pilchard that's been left in the bait tank for a week or two. Funny how shit like this that should have been sorted months ago becomes important to them all of a sudden.

[scottar]

Well it's not too hard to fathom. A lot of the effort has been removed from NSW waters and monitoring of things like catch per effort, size and age structure shows stocks are on the way up. From your link:

Commercial and recreational catch and fishing effort are at historically low levels in New South Wales. Commercial landings during 2016–17 were approximately 170 t, lower than the 10 year average of 245 t, and substantially lower than during the early 1980s when commercial landings approached 1 000 t per year. The number of days reported fish trapping when Snapper were landed has declined from 4 790 in 2009–10 to 3 226 in 2016–17, largely due to management driven reforms to the sector. The recreational harvest of Snapper in New South Wales declined from approximately 250 000 fish in 2000–01 to approximately 185 000 fish during 2013–14, and effort also declined markedly during this period [West et al. 2015). Trends in the size and age compositions in landed catches suggest population rebuilding from around 2008 onwards, with continual increases in the average sizes and ages of fish in commercial landings [Wortmann et al. 2018]. This indicates that the stock in New South Wales waters is increasing under existing levels of harvest. This level of fishing mortality is unlikely to cause the biological stock to become recruitment impaired.
On the basis of the evidence provided above, Snapper in New South Wales is classified as a sustainable stock.

Not what I was trying to convey - How is it that when data sets from two adjoining states utilising the same biomass end up with such vastly different outcomes given the acknowledgement that the line fisheries aren't really understood.

"This high relative harvest in New South Wales, in combination with the limited movement of East Coast Snapper [Harasti et al. 2015, Sumpton et al. 2003], indicates that the indices of relative abundance derived from the New South Wales trap fishery are more likely to represent the New South Wales stock than indices from the relatively small and less well understood line fishing sectors."

"The annual age-structured model partitioned the fishery into four sectors: New South Wales trap; New South Wales commercial line and charter; Queensland commercial line and charter, and, New South Wales and Queensland recreational. Model outputs for all line-fishing sectors estimated biomass to be below 20 per cent. In contrast, model scenarios using standardized New South Wales trap catch rates ranged between 20 per cent and 45 per cent of unfished levels, with the majority of estimates being above 30 per cent. "

So with the NSW and Qld line fishing giving similar numbers, but the extra trap data being the deciding factor that made NSW sustainable - why didn't FQ look further before implementing further restrictions - especially given the "Research Gaps" raised at the working groups? I won't bother reiterating my opinion.