New bag and size limits as of today

[tug_tellum]

Do they ever decide that there is enough of a particular species and it will be ok to go catch them again.
Example --- when will it be acceptable to catch whales again. I dont think that they are highly endangered anymore ,are they?When will people be allowed to catch and eat whales again? It must be getting close soon,surely.
tug_tellum

[Lovey80]

That's right - but they ignored the line fishing data as it gave vastly different results to the trap data. Much the same way FQ has ignored the fact there was a vast difference by not further questioning their own results given the presence of the NSW trap data. Every line fishing data model showed biomass at under 20% and yet the traps - show up to 45 with the majority above 30. If you purely go off NSW line data, they are more or less in the same boat as us. So given the variance - why hasn't someone gone "ok, lets look into this further - there has to be another underlying reason". Does it mean that if we had commercial trapping and the subsequent data as well, we would have "sustainable" snapper fishing or does it mean that NSW fisheries has cocked up.

At the end of the day, I have no issue with fisheries management based on real world figures sourced correctly. If they don't have rec data - bring in compulsory reporting the same way they did for the pros. Unless they or the pro lobby don't want it I guess because it might well show what has really been going on I suppose. My issue is with using mathematical models that are based on numbers that may be flawed to begin with - NSW fisheries obviously though so in the face of the additional data they had.

The model used last time was replicated this time but with just a few new data inputs. Last time the models were hammered by all except the Gold Coast charter mob who were pushing for the review. When Fisheries saw that their models for commercial catches showed that the Snapper fishery was stable they quickly declared that data as “hyper stable” and used a different model to get the desired outcome.

The move to start trying to predict the biomass relative to an 1880 virgin biomass is the problem. It’s a problem because they have not even the faintest idea what the current or virgin biomass is. They have not even the faintest idea of what the recreational catch is each year. They don’t even bother trying to work out how many fishable days are in a calendar year. They don’t even bother trying to work out how climate cycles effect recruitment numbers. In reality they don’t care.

Here is is a fact that one of the authors, Mathew will not dispute. If since the last biomass assessment there were zero fishable days, the model they use would still show a decline in biomass. That is an extreme example but it highlights the seriously crap modelling they are using to restrict all of our past times.

The single biggest sticking point for Recs the last time this rock show rolled around was the fact that we all knew and FQ admitted that the data for Rec catches was absolute bumpkin. We asked for catch cards to be implemented so we knew exactly what the data was. It was put into the too hard basket by an incompetent fisheries minister and probably on advise by FQ. Yet that data is by far the single biggest element of the models that try to reverse engineer a figure of the original virgin biomass. It’s all worked backwards.

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.

This is a very important fact that FQ also ignores. Or should I say dismisses. Sure Moreton bay and Gold Coast fishers, both Rec and charter are likely to show a significantly stressed Snapper population. Yet that data, as poor as it is, is given huge significance in the modelling. Sure, the Gold Coast charter data is probably solid. But as I pointed out 7 years ago, even to Mathew directly, there are plenty of reasons to consider those stocks as hyper depleted when considering the fishery as a whole. In the years leading up to that last assessment there was countless accounts of pissed off Recs complaining about GC charter operators doing SFA to put them on the fish and worrying more about fuel burn than willingness to put punters on fish. There was accounts of the close reefs silting up and becoming up fishable.

I doubt anyone would argue that Moreton and the GC has issues with it being so heavily targeted. But I don’t see Mathew and the other authors recommending area specific mitigation. Again, too hard basket. Not only are they wilfully not attempting to suggest it, but they are wilfully using the data for these areas to suggest it is the same across the whole fishery. As you have clearly pointed out, this is not the case. They know this!

[Lovey80]

That's right - but they ignored the line fishing data as it gave vastly different results to the trap data. Much the same way FQ has ignored the fact there was a vast difference by not further questioning their own results given the presence of the NSW trap data. Every line fishing data model showed biomass at under 20% and yet the traps - show up to 45 with the majority above 30. If you purely go off NSW line data, they are more or less in the same boat as us. So given the variance - why hasn't someone gone "ok, lets look into this further - there has to be another underlying reason". Does it mean that if we had commercial trapping and the subsequent data as well, we would have "sustainable" snapper fishing or does it mean that NSW fisheries has cocked up.

At the end of the day, I have no issue with fisheries management based on real world figures sourced correctly. If they don't have rec data - bring in compulsory reporting the same way they did for the pros. Unless they or the pro lobby don't want it I guess because it might well show what has really been going on I suppose. My issue is with using mathematical models that are based on numbers that may be flawed to begin with - NSW fisheries obviously though so in the face of the additional data they had.

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

Until the ###### mathematicians that try to tell me what the fishery is doing using shit data start boarding my boat so I can give them a gob full the “Poor Old Front Line Fisheries Guy” will have to pass on my sentiments.


35cm min
4 per person with no more than 1 over 70cm / 8 per boat with no more than 2 over 70cm (with 2 or more people on board)

So essentially the next time I’m on the banks or the northern hards the two boats next to me, one a commercial the other a charter operator with 25 punters on board can have over 100 fish on board but me with my 3 mates can only have a total of 8? With a total of 2 over 70? What a load of shit.

I guarantee that that every time I go out from now on that there will be 2 fish over 70cm and 6 between 65 and 69cm before I come home.

[Lovey80]

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

Thats a very valid and accurate point. It’s also one of the main reasons FQ gets to ignore data that shows stocks are stable and use different math models to show otherwise.

[Noelm]

Jet as a side note, a couple of days ago two artificial reefs where installed near me, I saw the boat working out there and wondered what it was doing, there was nothing in the paper, no gossip around the ramp, seems like it was a secret squirrel operation. I did end up googling something about it, you would think there would be a big deal made about it, telling us how fabulous everything is going, the article I found said it was after considerable public discussion, I don't know who they discussed it with.

[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"?

A pre-determined outcome would be when there no "explicitly stated level of bio mass" that would trigger a "relaxation " of current or future limits because without that the ""process"" (and i use that loosely)can only have a Status Quo outcome or a Reduction Outcome regardless of what the data shows.

Not having a shot at you , just saying if there is no trigger point then the outcome is pre-determined as the opposing outcome can not become a reality.

BigE

[Matthew Campbell]

A pre-determined outcome would be when there no "explicitly stated level of bio mass" that would trigger a "relaxation " of current or future limits because without that the ""process"" (and i use that loosely)can only have a Status Quo outcome or a Reduction Outcome regardless of what the data shows.

Not having a shot at you , just saying if there is no trigger point then the outcome is pre-determined as the opposing outcome can not become a reality.

BigE

Respectfully, BigE, the level of spawning biomass required before any sort of catch limits would be relaxed would be set as part of the harvest strategy process. As an example, the coral trout quota was increased for the 2018/19 season (https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/v...p/sl-2018-0037) by 200 tonnes. In that instance catch rates had increased to a point where an increase in quota was appropriate. Setting this level is not part of the stock assessment process but uses consultation with stakeholders through the harvest strategy.

[Ducksnutz]

Remember when Fishing was a pastime enjoyed by families and friends and......... never mind, on with the politics.😎

[scottar]

Respectfully, BigE, the level of spawning biomass required before any sort of catch limits would be relaxed would be set as part of the harvest strategy process. As an example, the coral trout quota was increased for the 2018/19 season (https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/v...p/sl-2018-0037) by 200 tonnes. In that instance catch rates had increased to a point where an increase in quota was appropriate. Setting this level is not part of the stock assessment process but uses consultation with stakeholders through the harvest strategy.

So why wasn't the amateur bag limit revised as well?

[Matthew Campbell]

So why wasn't the amateur bag limit revised as well?

I'm not the person to ask, Scott. Still right for Sunday week? I look forward to discussing this and other issues.

[scottar]

I'm not the person to ask, Scott. Still right for Sunday week? I look forward to discussing this and other issues.

Look forward to it Matthew. I sent an email earlier with contact details.

[banshee]

Respectfully, BigE, the level of spawning biomass required before any sort of catch limits would be relaxed would be set as part of the harvest strategy process. As an example, the coral trout quota was increased for the 2018/19 season (https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/v...p/sl-2018-0037) by 200 tonnes. In that instance catch rates had increased to a point where an increase in quota was appropriate. Setting this level is not part of the stock assessment process but uses consultation with stakeholders through the harvest strategy.

Are QLD rec fishers stakeholders?

[billfisher]

Are QLD rec fishers stakeholders?

Yes, but they don't have a quota and it's open entry (no limits on the numbers of fishermen).

[Matthew Campbell]

Here is is a fact that one of the authors, Mathew will not dispute. If since the last biomass assessment there were zero fishable days, the model they use would still show a decline in biomass. That is an extreme example but it highlights the seriously crap modelling they are using to restrict all of our past times.

Chris, with respect, I dispute many things you’ve said in this thread, especially this “fact”.

[castlemaine]

There's been a lot of criticism of Scientists here.

In another life, I worked for environmental scientists. Effect on the Great Barrier Reef, of all things.

How does a scientist get funding?

If they say everything is 'hunky-dory' , then why provide you with funding and equipment? So the best thing to do is to fudge the figures, run a scare campaign, blame a group (fishers in this case) for the poor sustainability, at very best ' let me check and see if this is the cause', etc.

"But I can't do this without funding"

I don't blame for minute for this approach, it's a political game, but I wonder if politicians listen to the ones that benefit them the most electorally eg Pandering to the Greens.