Queensland fisheries management.. sept 2022

[Lucky_Phill]

With the new Spanish Mackerel rules coming in, it is time to reflect on how our system of fisheries management is doing. Once again we see the perceived solution to a perceived problem is “ bag limit reductions and closed seasons “. Oh, we’ll now throw in a boat limit.


One of the biggest issues facing regulators is the absence of Recreational Catch Data. This is due to a number of factors and the main problem is the lack of trust between recreational anglers and Qld Fisheries.. ie “ The Government “. There is a direct link to the mistrust of Fisheries due to the mistrust of Government.


There is no doubt over-fishing is an issue and in particular in close proximity to major cities and towns along the East coast. Recreational and Commercial activities have exploded over the last 10 – 15 years with the advent of increasingly advanced technology in GPS, Sounders and vessel motors as well as “ shared information “, via social media. Let’s also consider the economic demographic compared to years ago.


Is there actually a solution to the decreasing fish populations along the Qld east coast ? I would like to think so, but I also believe the Fishery managers are hamstrung by Government types that have agendas and also the restrictive tools used to address current problems.


The Government and Fisheries have an image problem based on events a Government undertook that has not endeared itself to the Recreational Anglers. Recreational Anglers are waiting for the “ good news ‘.


Ever decreasing bag limits, Boat limits, Size limits, Green Zones, Closed seasons, slot limits added to fuel prices, inflation, doubling of vessel and trailer regos, the RUF going to general revenue, Greens doing deals with Govt for votes in relation to Artificial reefs and Green zones, BAC destroying acres of Seagrass beds in MB allowed by State Development department and now we have a AMCS policy advisor on Fisheries Committees / Working groups.


The Commercial fishing sector is also at its’ wits end, with “ unreasonable “ reporting requirements and further restrictions limiting their ability to provide Qld consumers with quality and affordable seafood. Add to this the cluster #### in relation to White Spot disease and the continued unrestricted importation of potentially biological hazardous seafood products from certain overseas countries, is it no wonder recreational anglers will not be a part of the Governments agenda to supress “ fishing “ to a point of participation collapse, bringing down a multi-billion dollar industry, that if managed correctly, effectively and with the right tools, could be a thriving tourist and domestic mecca.


In short, the State Government are handing Qld Fisheries a knife, to take to a gun fight.

[billfisher]

With the new Spanish Mackerel rules coming in, it is time to reflect on how our system of fisheries management is doing. Once again we see the perceived solution to a perceived problem is “ bag limit reductions and closed seasons “. Oh, we’ll now throw in a boat limit.




There is no doubt over-fishing is an issue and in particular in close proximity to major cities and towns along the East coast. Recreational and Commercial activities have exploded over the last 10 – 15 years with the advent of increasingly advanced technology in GPS, Sounders and vessel motors as well as “ shared information “, via social media. Let’s also consider the economic demographic compared to years ago.


Is there actually a solution to the decreasing fish populations along the Qld east coast ? I would like to think so, but I also believe the Fishery managers are hamstrung by Government types that have agendas and also the restrictive tools used to address current problems.



Ever decreasing bag limits, Boat limits, Size limits, Green Zones, Closed seasons, slot limits added to fuel prices, inflation, doubling of vessel and trailer regos, the RUF going to general revenue, Greens doing deals with Govt for votes in relation to Artificial reefs and Green zones, BAC destroying acres of Seagrass beds in MB allowed by State Development department and now we have a AMCS policy advisor on Fisheries Committees / Working groups.

Yes, but green zones were not an initiative of any of our fisheries departments and were not intended as a fisheries management tool. You also decry the other restrictions but these are quite cost effective. It is also a bit of hyperbole to assume that they will be 'ever decreasing'.

[Lucky_Phill]

Green Zones were rolled out in QLD under guise of habitat protection and .... AND... fishing pressure dispersal.

BUT, this pales into insignificance to what is about to happen in WA.

ANOTHER FLOGGING. E-Petition raised for WA anglers supported by Keep Australia Fishing:-

" To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned ...


are opposed to the proposal by Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) to ban demersal fishing for between 8 and 9 months a year and believe it does not align to the objects of fisheries legislation.
We therefore ask the Legislative Council to:


Review the proposal by the Department for Primary Industries and Regional Development to ban West Coast demersal fishing for between 8 and 9 months a year.


The recreational fishing industry contributes over $2.4 billion dollars to the WA economy every year. Recreational fishing is a vital part of the WA lifestyle, with demersal fishing between Augusta and Kalbarri being very popular pastime amongst 1000s of West Australians. The proposed ban will not only affect the recreational fishing community it will also have a devastating flow on effect to many small businesses and families in both the metropolitan area and coastal regional towns, resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs and income.



And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray."

DID WE READ THAT.??? ........... 8 - 9 months per year.

What is currently happening here in Qld is just the tip of the iceberg. The " ever increasing " subterfuge of hidden agendas is starting to smell like a bucket of imported Vannamei Prawns in the February Sun.

LP

[Lovey80]

Yes, but green zones were not an initiative of any of our fisheries departments and were not intended as a fisheries management tool. You also decry the other restrictions but these are quite cost effective. It is also a bit of hyperbole to assume that they will be 'ever decreasing'.

based on the last 40 years of Fisheries management this is exactly the case. Take the current Spanish Mack assessment. Based off the previous models Spanish were “sustainably” fished. Fisheries decides to change the model and bang the stock status plummets overnight.

They basically just told us that previous “best practice” for stock assessments was completely bogus and that they were vastly overstating the biomass levels and the new model shows that we are in dire straights. Why should we trust the new model?

[Dignity]

Consultation? Offer a selection already decided upon is the consultation I was offered.

[billfisher]

based on the last 40 years of Fisheries management this is exactly the case. Take the current Spanish Mack assessment. Based off the previous models Spanish were “sustainably” fished. Fisheries decides to change the model and bang the stock status plummets overnight.

They basically just told us that previous “best practice” for stock assessments was completely bogus and that they were vastly overstating the biomass levels and the new model shows that we are in dire straights. Why should we trust the new model?

You have picked out one case/ species, ie so much for 'exactly the case'.

[billfisher]

based on the last 40 years of Fisheries management this is exactly the case. Take the current Spanish Mack assessment. Based off the previous models Spanish were “sustainably” fished. Fisheries decides to change the model and bang the stock status plummets overnight.

They basically just told us that previous “best practice” for stock assessments was completely bogus and that they were vastly overstating the biomass levels and the new model shows that we are in dire straights. Why should we trust the new model?

No, the new assessment also included more up to date and comprehensive catch and size data as well as different modelling:

Spanish mackerel stock assessment | Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Queensland (daf.qld.gov.au)

[disorderly]

No, the new assessment also included more up to date and comprehensive catch and size data as well as different modelling:

Spanish mackerel stock assessment | Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Queensland (daf.qld.gov.au)

Comprehisive catch and size data..?

Surely you jest...

This was all based on 2100 rec fishers diary entries of 4692 fishing trips which was then extropolated to match the estimated actual 660000 people that went fishing during the 12 month period...

The most common reported catch was Whiting...

[billfisher]

Comprehisive catch and size data..?

Surely you jest...

This was all based on 2100 rec fishers diary entries of 4692 fishing trips which was then extropolated to match the estimated actual 660000 people that went fishing during the 12 month period...

The most common reported catch was Whiting...

You are playing word games. The catch data is more up to date. The 'more comprehensive' comes in with 'new biological data such as fish length and age'.

[Noelm]

Everyone wants true data for fisheries decisions, how do they collect this data! The average rec Fisher is paranoid about giving information, yet whinges and whines when anything is released because it wasn't correct (in their opinion) if anyone can suggest a legitimate, accurate method of collecting rec data, I'm sure the relevant authorities would be interested. We all want a "fair go" but I find it hard to believe that anyone on this site can say rec species and catch rates are in decline. Let's be clear, there is certainly more boats, better boats and gear, environmental issues, bag limits, slot limits, size limits, all sorts of things based on "loose data". It's easy to sit back and blame someone else, either authorities, pros, black marketers, charter operators, anyone but ourselves, collectively, WE catch a lot of fish, how to manage it is a huge issue.

[Noelm]

Just to add, there's a bit of data on "registered boats" this is a kind of scientific measurement on people who boat, but, ski boats are registered, people fish from the shore, from a Kayak, spearfish, all sorts of things can swing the numbers any way you like. There's also the old adage, "no size fits all" which is also totally relevant, what affects (say) a Gold Coast rec fisher, might not even interest someone fishing the Gulf, similarly, state by state is worlds apart. Whichever way you cut it, it's in our laps, we can turn our head and close our eyes, we can whinge, we can do the right thing, but, one things certain, this is a big issue, and people are going to get butt hurt from decisions, and in the long term, big picture, we have ourselves to blame.

[Lucky_Phill]

I have said a lot on this subject over many many years and with sitting on working groups within Qld Fisheries, I do have an insight into the workings.

I talked to the scientists, policy people, specific fishery managers, field officers and even had discussions all the way up to Ministers ( not that they count ).

Generally speaking, I do believe the " ground roots " people are doing the best they can with the tools, information and funding provided.

A lot of information gathered is from social media reporting, including this forum and similar ones, information such as catches, places, peoples thoughts ( like this here ), expenditure and so much more. This is a good thing IMO. They are not collecting info in a sneaky fashion, as what Noelm clearly stated and is true, how else are they going to gather info from recreational anglers, as we " don't trust them '. A huge problem that needs solving is that very " trust " between the fishery managers and the anglers.

OK, so rec anglers do not always sit on working groups or committees or have their thoughts and ideas translated into actions, but we are stakeholders and in fact THE major stakeholder. Our economic expenditure and benefit to this State sits well above commercial rates. The thing is, Fisheries was created many many years ago to manage / support the commercial sector, issuing licensees = money for Govt. At that time recreational angling was a hobby at best. Therefore was not on the radar of any Govt department like fisheries or tourism or even TMR ( regos ). Over time recreational angling became a " behemoth " and is now a Billion Dollar Plus industry supporting thousands of jobs and business and indeed is now being recognized by Health Departments as a provider of Health and Well-Being activities across all ages. Therein lies the problem, I fell. Recreational anglers feel " undervalued ".

Here is the line I have used many times and still holds credence.

Fisheries use the term " harvest " a lot in describing the catch rates etc........ BUT... to Harvest , first you must Sow. Every recreational, commercial and charter person does NOT sow ( barring freshwater stocking impoundments ) to reap the benefit of their actions, we simply take. To try to address this, a Government has a portfolio of Fisheries to manage the " take ". Piss poor quality control if you ask me. The answer we are searching for is not contained within the " Rocket Science " book for dummies, it is much less complicated than that.

You must Sow to Harvest. Reconfiguration of poorly performing management ideas and tools is NOT working and not endearing itself to the relationship between the fishery managers and the stakeholders.

Let the facts show that NOT ONE specific fishery has returned to original Bio-mass or even close under the management of Qld Fisheries given their approach and management tools available.

Their approach is governed by the State Government ( and agendas contained within ) and their tools restricted by Government funding. I believe if the department was given a free management reign and appropriate funding, we all would not be having this discussion.

Having well known and well versed recreational anglers sit side by side with commercial folks and Fisheries people, as equal stakeholders, nutting out policy, would go a long way to repairing the mis-trust, after all, we all want the same thing, the same outcome. The problem here is, the Government will not entertain the idea of paying the stakeholders for their expertise, knowledge, time and effort. The very people that have answers and solutions also do not have the time to volunteer this and more-so, knowing their ideas will not be taken seriously enough to push into legislation.

The fishery is being hamstrung in a number of ways.

Political agendas.........
Inappropriate Funding.....
Restrictive management Tools
Stakeholder exclusions
Long term vision

Let's throw in the " divide and conquer " agenda. Pro's VS rec's. This should NOT be happening, we are equal stakeholders and are all Stewards of the Seas.

Did I mention, you first must SOW, before you can HARVEST ?

Moving forward, there is much work to be done. How do we build a trust between Fisheries and US ? probably will not happen in my lifetime.

I have to disagree with Nolem on something and that is the decline in bio-mass of specific species. Yes, the number of boats and people fishing has increased exponentially over the last 10 - 15 ( 20 ) years, but anecdotal evidence does support the reduction in numbers of target species in tidal waters and in particular average size of those species. Are those specific fisheries in danger of collapse ? Depends on who you ask. The other question is why has the specific fishery declined and to what degree ?

The decline can be put down to a number of things, more recreational fishing pressure, technology, habitat destruction, outdated commercial fishing practices,black marketeering, seasonal climate changes, pollution, uptake in charter operators and more.

What is being done to counter act this ? Same old , Same old... bag limits, size limits, closed seasons, boat limits, slot limits. IT IS NOT WORKING.

I do not have the answers... but did I mention, FIRST YOU MUST SOW, BEFORE YOU CAN HARVEST.

On a personal note, I believe the Qld fishery is OK, at best. Is it sustainable under the current legislated rules ?.... NO.

We are at a crossroads right now , with fuel prices going through the roof as well as commodity prices ( tackle, bait, boats ) and on the cusp of electric outboard motors sneaking into the industry. Recreational angling has always been based on economic circumstances and those will dictate the type of angling we undertake. There is no doubt our current economic climate ( recreational fishing ) is buoyant, but it is also peaking, IMO.

We have an opportunity, right here, right now, to invest in our future, the States future and the Fishery future. It is a simple matter of redirecting some funding sourced from the mining ( again, no Sow, just Harvest ) towards a sustainable fishery. It again, is not rocket science, first you must Sow, before you can Harvest. OR, just direct the funding gathered from the Fishing Industry and using those millions to turn the fishery into a world class attraction both tourism wise and domestically.

Think Saudi Arabia....... Oil sales will decline, so what did they do... they had a vision and invested significantly in their future, a future without oil resources.

The State Government, Fisheries and ALL stakeholders need to look forward, not 2 , 5 or 10 years down the track, further, much further. Investing in a well managed and sustainable fishery now, because not only will it cost more then, it may be too late.

I have a lot more to tell, but this is my thoughts ( novel ) for today.

LP

[Noelm]

Absolutely 100% correct Phil, we do not own the fish, we (rec and pro) simply take, the issue is huge, pros not only pay for a license, they also have big fuel, gear, and maintenance cost, just like a rec does, arguing about banning pros is useless, it's been going on for generations and never works. I have been lucky (or unlucky maybe) to have sat on a couple of "working parties" for various things, and I can tell you, it's not easy, everything has a caveat, you mention (say) boat ramps, immediately there's council, greens, state government, maritime and Christ knows who else suddenly appears out of the dark. Rec fishing is no different, there is a dozen "stakeholders" from the mum and dad/family tourist fishers to the expert to the charter operator to the tag and release only guy, and it all comes in a big bowl, all tangled up in a fuzzy mess. The time HAS come, it's not too late.....yet!

[billfisher]

OK, so rec anglers do not always sit on working groups or committees or have their thoughts and ideas translated into actions, but we are stakeholders and in fact THE major stakeholder. Our economic expenditure and benefit to this State sits well above commercial rates. The thing is, Fisheries was created many many years ago to manage / support the commercial sector, issuing licensees = money for Govt. At that time recreational angling was a hobby at best. Therefore was not on the radar of any Govt department like fisheries or tourism or even TMR ( regos ). Over time recreational angling became a " behemoth " and is now a Billion Dollar Plus industry supporting thousands of jobs and business and indeed is now being recognized by Health Departments as a provider of Health and Well-Being activities across all ages. Therein lies the problem, I fell. Recreational anglers feel " undervalued ".



Let the facts show that NOT ONE specific fishery has returned to original Bio-mass or even close under the management of Qld Fisheries given their approach and management tools available.



LP

What we spend comes under consumer discretionary. It could just as easily go to some other recreation if fishing wasn't available.

Original biomass is the anti - use approach. It's never the target of fisheries management. 60% would be very robust for a fished stock. Maximum sustainable yield is around 40%. Under fishing pressure the dynamics change. Certain classes benefit from less predation and less competition for food, This creates a surplus which can be harvested each year.

[Lucky_Phill]

What we spend comes under consumer discretionary. It could just as easily go to some other recreation if fishing wasn't available.

Original biomass is the anti - use approach. It's never the target of fisheries management. 60% would be very robust for a fished stock. Maximum sustainable yield is around 40%. Under fishing pressure the dynamics change. Certain classes benefit from less predation and less competition for food, This creates a surplus which can be harvested each year.

All well and good, but............. 60% of what ? Original bio-mass.......... what is that number ? The maximum sustainable yield is a figure based on guesswork. The formulas for sustainability are neither robust or accurate.

Again... you ( billfisher ) even mention harvested....... you cannot harvest if you don't sow. We simply take, take , take and we do jack poo poo to replenish stocks, other than outdated and " wishful thinking " new regs, year in year out.

IMO.... the whole shiteshow is a shambles from the Minister down. This is for rec's and pro's alike.

I don't have the answers or the science to back my ideas, but the two I believe in are NOT on the table within Fisheries Management, unfortunately.

here's something to ponder.

Snapper... natural recruitment is estimated at 1%................ Wild stocking recruitment is estimated at 1%. Yet FQ will not entertain the idea of wild stocking. Wild stocking can produce better outcomes if stocking sizes are above the minimum where predation is rampant.

" Not viable " is the response, but is a fishery that expires, viable ? It is not a matter of being viable, it is a matter of investing in the future of the fishery.

We could go on for hours, but until such time that FQ get unlimited reign over their mission with funding to support their projects, it will be " same old , same old ' and the losers will be the fishery.

LP