Queensland fisheries management.. sept 2022

[Dignity]

"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##)."

Just to expand on this comment a colleague I worked with said "no point sucking up to the boss, working your arse off as he'll leave and you'll have to do it all over again"

Never a truer word spoken, one of the issues that makes it hard to keep on track, another election, new minister, new direction.

I'm looking forward to the next novel Phil as you certainly make a lot of sense.

[billfisher]

Well, they replenish naturally. This is actually a lot more friendly to the environment than other forms of food production. It is estimated that sustainable fisheries have 30 times less impact than livestock production and (vegetarians take note), 12 times less impact than agricultural production.

[Andrew_P]

Phill - you can sow the wild as much as you like but the numbers removed through fishing mortality and natural mortality are so high that stocking the wild won’t make a measurable difference.

There’s a reason why people stock impoundments - they are closed systems that you can measure the result of seeding (or sowing) via stocking programs. It’s not worth it in an estuary or offshore environment.

The best answers science can give us are the principles behind good fisheries management. Regular stock assessments based on scientific data providing a range of stock estimates of agreed scenarios; controlling inputs (gear, licences) and outputs (bag and size limits), and targeting a stock size that has the ability and protection to replace or rebuild itself. The hardest thing to accept is that no one knows exactly how many fish are out there, and that management decisions depend upon estimates (or informed, scientific guesses) and can impact the users of the shared, public resource.

The only way to improve rec data contributing to these assessments is through engaging with the process by volunteering accurate data ourselves; data that represents the harvest across the wide range of fishers’ ability and avidity. The risk is that the picture more accurate data paints might differ from your or my opinions on the stock, and result in management that could impact rec fisher experience. But if the best guess is the stock needs further measures to improve its resilience then surely we are big enough to accept those measures?

Food for thought

[Noelm]

I don't buy the "not viable" argument, there comes a time when Government departments must provide a "service" even if it's not profitable or "viable". How restocking works in the wild is anyone's guess, especially "wandering" species. Sure species replenish naturally, but, if we continue to take faster than they naturally restock, then it's a never ending downhill slide, with only one sad ending. No one likes size increases or bag limits, but it's the only way, I cannot see the day when rec fishermen provide accurate catch and effort information, paranoia is way too strong and ingrained.

[Dignity]

I recall attending fishing seminars at Lutwyche, Brisbane hosted by a well known tackle store. One of the speakers I recall was John Palermo who explained his method of targeting big snapper and was happy to go home with just half a dozen, next speaker was totally different, his method was targeting smaller fish, from memory at that time the minimum size was 27cm, He would regularly catch 200 and admitted one night 300 fish. This was considered acceptable at the time and he had lots of people wanting to talk to him after the presentations.

Back in those days, did we rape and pillage the fisheries, seems we did. How does the fishery recover from that sort of pressure other than by intervention through size and bag limits. I've been at the ramp when "volunteers" have been collecting data, I've been honest in my responses but as I frequent ramps as they are in my neighbourhood I've heard others responses and I know they have given crap responses. How do you collect good honest data, commercial fishermen have to advise what they have on board before they berth, no such requirement on the rec fisherman.
Unfortunately there are enough people out there that refuse because we're a Nanny state.

I have no answers but willing to listen to others thoughts.

[Noelm]

Past fishing was at times simply slaughter, it was the way it was, catch as many as you could, give them away, sell some, dump some at the cleaning table, fortunately those days are behind us, but (in my opinion) the future doesn't look too bright. I don't think we will wipe out (say) Snapper, but, restrictions will become so tight, that bringing a legal feed home is going to be an effort.

[Lovey80]

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

I can’t think of one species where the bag or TAC has increased. Only ever further restrictions. Which shows that the management tools enforced upon us are simply not working.

[Lovey80]

Phill - you can sow the wild as much as you like but the numbers removed through fishing mortality and natural mortality are so high that stocking the wild won’t make a measurable difference.

There’s a reason why people stock impoundments - they are closed systems that you can measure the result of seeding (or sowing) via stocking programs. It’s not worth it in an estuary or offshore environment.

The best answers science can give us are the principles behind good fisheries management. Regular stock assessments based on scientific data providing a range of stock estimates of agreed scenarios; controlling inputs (gear, licences) and outputs (bag and size limits), and targeting a stock size that has the ability and protection to replace or rebuild itself. The hardest thing to accept is that no one knows exactly how many fish are out there, and that management decisions depend upon estimates (or informed, scientific guesses) and can impact the users of the shared, public resource.

The only way to improve rec data contributing to these assessments is through engaging with the process by volunteering accurate data ourselves; data that represents the harvest across the wide range of fishers’ ability and avidity. The risk is that the picture more accurate data paints might differ from your or my opinions on the stock, and result in management that could impact rec fisher experience. But if the best guess is the stock needs further measures to improve its resilience then surely we are big enough to accept those measures?

Food for thought

I don't buy the "not viable" argument, there comes a time when Government departments must provide a "service" even if it's not profitable or "viable". How restocking works in the wild is anyone's guess, especially "wandering" species. Sure species replenish naturally, but, if we continue to take faster than they naturally restock, then it's a never ending downhill slide, with only one sad ending. No one likes size increases or bag limits, but it's the only way, I cannot see the day when rec fishermen provide accurate catch and effort information, paranoia is way too strong and ingrained.

Noelm, you are correct that rec fishermen won’t voluntarily supply accurate catch data. But there is a much better way of collecting Rec data and that is rough mandatory catch reporting just like the pros and charter operators do. Yes there will be kicking and screaming and it will piss people off. But we as the major stake holder in almost every major fisheries decision must be forced into accurately reporting exactly how much of the resource we harvest every month.

that’s as simple as an app where you record every fish you put in the esky. Have fisheries officers double check that harvested fish on board boats and on the shore match what is in peoples bags. The app can simply upload that data as soon as it gets back in 4G range. There are technologies out there that can also assist in fish ID to make the app more interactive in assisting fishers to accurately ID fish and could easily allow a brag mat style auto measure feature.

start with all the most heavily targeted species that are considered under threat. Spanish, Snapper, Pearl Perch, Trag, mud crabs etc. make recording your harvest an integral part of fishing.

There will be a few old timers that don’t use smart phones. They can be accounted for with a paper version they can either send in every month or scan and email etc. those people won’t need to be accounted for for much longer. Even my 86 year old grand mother uses a smart phone and an iPad now.

This was brought up by the Rec sector over 10 years ago during the RRFF review. It was shit canned by the then minister.

this only solves the data issue with stock assessments. No longer will fisheries be able to assume the catches are increasing by 7% a year because boat sales increase by 7% a year (or what ever the number is).

The other part of the solution is to get govt to really take us seriously and to start returning some of the significant revenue that rec fishers generate. Over time this will actually increase government revenue if it is done well and the fishery is returned to a world class one with significantly increased maximum sustainable yields.

artificial reefs and restocking have to be part of that. We hear “not viable” with regards to restocking. That’s simply double speak for it will cost more money to do than fisheries receives in funding. If we are getting 100% of RUF plus even 15% of the GST revenue back for all things related to fishing to go towards these things then that will be more than enough to restock big parts of the most heavily targeted species.

look at it this way. If a species (lets pick Spanish as an example). Let’s say natural recruitment is estimated at 1%. And restocking could make up another 1-2%. Then simply restricting harvest to below 1% and adding an extra 2% will move increase the biomass by 20% over a 10 year period. Get the biomass to above say 50%, then return the harvest to 1.5% per year. Over time that will not only have increased our current take, but will gradually rebuild the stock after returning it to a much more healthy state. This will also aid in natural recruitment as larger parts of the biomass will have larger size/age distributions.

to achieve this, 2 simple things need to happen. Forced Rec data reporting and government handing back some of the free revenue that is generated from this past time (and the commercial side of it too). Imagine 15% of all taxes that come from tackle, bait, outboards, boats, sounders etc being out directly into rebuilding fish stocks? If this was taken as seriously as climate change then 15% would be considered well underfunded.

[Noelm]

Yep, what you say is true, any stocking must be better than none, mandatory catch reporting would be great, but I have my doubts about participation. Part of that comes back to my government providing a "service" statement, more fisheries officers is essential, some won't like it, but the long game is where we need to be looking, I personally don't care if I get checked, and in all my time fishing, I have been "inspected" once (NSW, not QLD) and that was out past the shelf, a big fisheries patrol boat turned up to see what I was up to. There's a thousand things at play here, from the grass roots kid fishing off a jetty, right up to the charter operator. It's a very long term vision, but, the longer it gets ignored, the harder it is to fix.
edit.......I forgot, I have been checked by fisheries in Lake Illawarra crabbing one time, so I have been checked twice in total in decades of fishing.

[billfisher]

I can’t think of one species where the bag or TAC has increased. Only ever further restrictions. Which shows that the management tools enforced upon us are simply not working.

I wouldn't call it a failure. Rec fishing is open entry so with a growing population you have to consider that there are more participants. In any case some stocks appear to be increasing under current fisheries management. Plus fishing is like a mining exercise in the early stages of a fishery. It's inevitable and not a sign of failure that when they are fished down there will be more restrictions.

[chris69]

I wouldn't call it a failure. Rec fishing is open entry so with a growing population you have to consider that there are more participants. In any case some stocks appear to be increasing under current fisheries management. Plus fishing is like a mining exercise in the early stages of a fishery. It's inevitable and not a sign of failure that when they are fished down there will be more restrictions.

What fish stocks do you think have increased Billfisher.

[billfisher]

What fish stocks do you think have increased Billfisher.

Snapper in NSW in recent years. Coral trout on the GBR. Just of the top of my head - I'm sure there would be a few more.

[Noelm]

Gees, I can't see I have seen any increase in Snapper numbers here, catching any is considered a bonus these days.

[billfisher]

Gees, I can't see I have seen any increase in Snapper numbers here, catching any is considered a bonus these days.

If you could define 'here' it might be more useful. If anywhere is overfished it should be off Sydney, but we have been having excellent reports:

Facebook

I looked at the 2018 stock assessment for NSW and it said snapper no's and size seem to be increasing,

[chris69]

If you could define 'here' it might be more useful. If anywhere is overfished it should be off Sydney, but we have been having excellent reports:

Facebook

I looked at the 2018 stock assessment for NSW and it said snapper no's and size seem to be increasing,

Are you saw there not qld snapper that went south for a holiday because our qld snapper have gone somewhere,I know your Jew from down there have moved north.