New bag and size limits as of today

[scottar]

If anyone is interested in discussing the data used in the stock assessment or any other aspect, feel free to contact me on matthew.campbell@daf.qld.gov.au. The stock assessment document is located here http://era.daf.qld.gov.au/id/eprint/...ment2018V3.pdf.

Some of the graphing and so on in the reports are a bit hard to fully interpret for a layperson Matthew. Given that the recreational data utilised was an estimate - how many of the states fishers were assumed to have caught snapper, how many of the states boats were assumed to have participated in the snapper fishery and how many snapper or kilos of snapper were assumed to have been taken by each fisher?

[scottar]

The size and age structure of the NSW catch is going up, as well as catch per effort. It's a good sign that the snapper no's are increasing under current management.

That's why they are classed as sustainable. They also point out the line fishery is small and less understood so put more weight on the trap data.

Whereas the Qld snapper stocks are regarded as not likely to improve under current management - how this is worked is not clear - your reference just quotes 'modelling'. Presumably they factor in trends, in age, size and catch per effort also. Ie it don't thinks it's all based on an absolute estimate of the stock.

Why don't you ask Mathew Campbell about it?

Just asked Matthew a few questions and he is more than welcome to jump in any time if he has an answer to the points I've raised.

Edit. After talking with Matthew it became evident that some of the information I had been given was incorrect. The reference to such has been deleted.

[Matthew Campbell]

More than happy to discuss these issues in person Scott. What day next week suits you? Any day but Wednesday is ok for me. Look forward to catching up.

[scottar]

More than happy to discuss these issues in person Scott. What day next week suits you? Any day but Wednesday is ok for me. Look forward to catching up.

I'll have to take a raincheck thanks Matthew unless you are available outside hours. Unfortunately my employment contract isn't written to cover paid consultation with fisheries. Rest assured though, next time I'm on annual leave I will look you up if the offer stands.

[Matthew Campbell]

I'll have to take a raincheck thanks Matthew unless you are available outside hours. Unfortunately my employment contract isn't written to cover paid consultation with fisheries. Rest assured though, next time I'm on annual leave I will look you up if the offer stands.

No problem. I can manage Saturday 14 Sep or Sunday 15 Sep? Which would you prefer?

[efc]

Why isn’t this forum a suitable place for discussion?

[scottar]

Lets have a crack at Sunday. I'll send an email for details

[Matthew Campbell]

No worries

[BigE]

I’m in exactly the same boat as you now. What this says is that for the last 30 years fisheries has had absolutely no clue on what measures are needed to sustain fish stocks. Is this now the 4th or 5th turn at adding restrictions on Snapper?

They didn’t get it right all the other times, at what point do you just lose all confidence in these people to come up with a management plan that doesn’t have a revolving door of doom and gloom predictions.

We were told last time that the Snapper stocks were not at risk of collapse. We added a ridiculous measure-only on recreationals, and here we are a few years later and the stocks have become even worse?

Im now firmly in the camp of people that believe fisheries scientists need to be constantly messing with the system and predicting doom to justify their existence on a tax payer funded gravy train.

The whole department is a joke and any fisheries that board my boat from now on are going to get a gob full from the time they step on until the time they step off.

Understand your feeling but the poor old frontline fisheries guy probably had absolutely no input in to these decisions, venting grief at them is a bit like road rage it usually doesn't end well.
Fully understand your feelings mine are similar. I never do keel surveys for the same reasons.

BigE

[BigE]

Just asked Matthew a few questions and he is more than welcome to jump in any time if he has an answer to the points I've raised. From what I have heard from various sources over the last week or so, there is a whole lot of stuff that various individuals have raised with FQ in relation to the accuracy of their estimates that have basically just been shrugged off. Whether this is the result of simply not knowing the answers on FQ's part or whether it doesn't fit into the governments agenda of course is purely up for speculation. Issues I was told were raised were reduction in effort in certain commercial areas as a direct result of shark predation issues being allowed for in catch figures that were utilised. Basically catches were down as pros simply could not fish the way they used to as sharkings had increased to levels that were an issue ( something that pretty much any reef fisherman will tell you anecdotally since sharks were protected to a higher level) - fobbed off when questioned. Another was whether modelling involved any sort of correlation to weather patterns in conjunction with lunar cycles and other environmental factors - something that every fisherman knows can play a major part in catches and could be a possible contributor to reduced numbers. A direct answer of no was the reply to that one. So even if it blew it's ring out for 365 days straight ( for the purpose of making a point), FQ's modelling would still see a "standardised" number of fish caught and a simple reduction in volume for the pro sector. This may be one area where NSW's trap data becomes significant - traps still fish when the weather or current or what ever else isn't conducive to line fishing thus leading to higher catch rates and ultimately a higher biomass calculation.



The age frequency graphs from what I can see don't seem to have changed in any great fashion for a long time and the age frequency was similar to QLD in NSW line fishing yet different in NSW trap - same questions raised - is it then simply a result of the way the fishery is carried out rather than a reflection of the stock as a whole. One interesting point I found is that FQ's own data shows discrepancy in so much that the age frequency for recreational fishing is lower than that of pro fisherman - so where is the stock actually at - they utilised the lower number which could simply mean that the recs who donated fish for sampling were happy with smaller fish - who knows. Their own reports recommendations basically states they need to make a better effort to gain more accurate data from the recreational sector (page 47 of the report Matthew referenced) - guess it was just easier to limit us further or someone really doesn't want the truth to come out.

Hi Scottar
if you do have a go at this start here
"""The point of sustainability at which bag limits will increase, I have no problem with the boffins showing evidence that indicates that there is a need for the resource pressure to be reduced so that the stock is sustainable ,,,,,,But that would also mean that there would be a point at which the stock would be able to sustain an increase in resource utilisation ( an increase in bag limits ) without a balance in the equation then it is just a social engineering exercise to restrict the access to a resource of Joe Average and nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the resource.""""
Any approach that doesn't start with a tipping point is always going to result in a reduction or restriction, I'm not increasing the bag limit is the way to go what I'm saying is without a goal point where limits increase (either in reality or theory ) then your only debating how much to cut and not how to get to sustainability.
I predict any mention of a bio mass turning point benchmark will make the boffin's run ...... no one likes to draw a goal line for the opposing team (you never know they just might get there) better to keep us in an unwinnable battlefield.

BigE

[BigE]

If anyone is interested in discussing the data used in the stock assessment or any other aspect, feel free to contact me on matthew.campbell@daf.qld.gov.au. The stock assessment document is located here http://era.daf.qld.gov.au/id/eprint/...ment2018V3.pdf.

Hi Matthew
Any mention in the assessment of a stock number /level that would trigger an increase or potential increase in bag limits?? Or is it a one way type of assessment with a pre-determined outcome of reduction as the only option?

BigE

[billfisher]

Hi Matthew
Any mention in the assessment of a stock number /level that would trigger an increase or potential increase in bag limits?? Or is it a one way type of assessment with a pre-determined outcome of reduction as the only option?

BigE

Well there are 3 options, more restrictions, keep them the same or relax them. Also you don't seem to have considered that tighter restriction don't necessarily mean a

'social engineering exercise to restrict the access to a resource of Joe Average '. That's because if they work then it won't be hard to reach your bag limit and the average size will be larger. Also you can catch and release as much as you want. The NT barra situation would be a good example.

[Matthew Campbell]

Hi Matthew
Any mention in the assessment of a stock number /level that would trigger an increase or potential increase in bag limits?? Or is it a one way type of assessment with a pre-determined outcome of reduction as the only option?

BigE

The stock assessment document does not explicitly state the level of spawning biomass required before bag limits would be increased. I'm not sure what you mean by "pre-determined outcome"?

[Aussie123]

Just asked Matthew a few questions and he is more than welcome to jump in any time if he has an answer to the points I've raised. From what I have heard from various sources over the last week or so, there is a whole lot of stuff that various individuals have raised with FQ in relation to the accuracy of their estimates that have basically just been shrugged off. Whether this is the result of simply not knowing the answers on FQ's part or whether it doesn't fit into the governments agenda of course is purely up for speculation. Issues I was told were raised were reduction in effort in certain commercial areas as a direct result of shark predation issues being allowed for in catch figures that were utilised. Basically catches were down as pros simply could not fish the way they used to as sharkings had increased to levels that were an issue ( something that pretty much any reef fisherman will tell you anecdotally since sharks were protected to a higher level) - fobbed off when questioned. Another was whether modelling involved any sort of correlation to weather patterns in conjunction with lunar cycles and other environmental factors - something that every fisherman knows can play a major part in catches and could be a possible contributor to reduced numbers. A direct answer of no was the reply to that one. So even if it blew it's ring out for 365 days straight ( for the purpose of making a point), FQ's modelling would still see a "standardised" number of fish caught and a simple reduction in volume for the pro sector. This may be one area where NSW's trap data becomes significant - traps still fish when the weather or current or what ever else isn't conducive to line fishing thus leading to higher catch rates and ultimately a higher biomass calculation.



The age frequency graphs from what I can see don't seem to have changed in any great fashion for a long time and the age frequency was similar to QLD in NSW line fishing yet different in NSW trap - same questions raised - is it then simply a result of the way the fishery is carried out rather than a reflection of the stock as a whole. One interesting point I found is that FQ's own data shows discrepancy in so much that the age frequency for recreational fishing is lower than that of pro fisherman - so where is the stock actually at - they utilised the lower number which could simply mean that the recs who donated fish for sampling were happy with smaller fish - who knows. Their own reports recommendations basically states they need to make a better effort to gain more accurate data from the recreational sector (page 47 of the report Matthew referenced) - guess it was just easier to limit us further or someone really doesn't want the truth to come out.

The age difference between rec and pro caught fish is because the majority of the pros travel vast distances to catch their fish while recs fish inshore mostly. The recs fishing off Brisbane are generally catching and keeping smaller snapper and often just legal sized fish.
I fish with a number of commercial guys and we travel 150km before we even start fishing and the average size of the snapper is far bigger than off Brisbane or any inshore waters. The schools of snapper are also massive as they rarely get fished due to their remote locations.
The same goes for the Pearlies out there, they are mostly large fish and hang in massive schools.
We often comment about how healthy the fish stocks are but unfortunately fisheries only do their rec surveys in areas that have been flogged for decades, especially off highly populated areas like Brisbane.
There are some amazing populations of fish out there, especially when you see shows of fish the size of a house but they are just not in the range of rec anglers to reach.

The NSW trap industry has always targeted plate sized snapper which is why statistics show a smaller average size of fish compared to the recs.
Nozzle sizes on the traps are kept at a smaller size to keep sharks and wobbies ect out of them and any large snapper need to force their way in through the nozzle if they want to get in to the trap so they do not see a lot of large fish overall.
Market price for large snapper has always been at the lower end compared to plate sized snapper as the bulk of buyers want the smaller fish. This is why the import of small snapper from NZ sees huge numbers of just legal NZ snapper hitting our shores every week.

[rayken1938]

Would not the increase in bag limits of bass indicate it is a two way street?
Strangely enough on some other forums there is opposition to the increase .
In my opinion one of the reasons that whilst catch numbers may not have declined whilst the stock numbers has declined is the increasing sophistication of electronics.
Gps navigation versus lining up a tip of a hill with freds windmill for locations.
Able to see structure on sounders and mark it in gps and then automatically go direct to the location and sit on it.
None of this was available 40 years ago so now we now have the ability to easily locate and target the remaining fish.
Cheers
Ray