Snapper Recruitment & Predation effects, Qld

[Lucky_Phill]

Queensland is forever changing the recreational fishing rules and regulations.

I am currently trying to understand the Snapper situation and it is not easy. I am in contact with DAF and hope to have some answers soon.

The word Recruitment, as I understand it today, means a fish has hatched and achieved a size / age that will allow it to spawn / breed.

My concerns are that the level of predation is unknown to me. Is predation, as outlined by DAF / FQ, a holistic figure ?

It is my belief that fish are subject to predation at various sizes and various amounts ( percentages ) until of course, they reach the FQ size limit, where they are subject to " human predation ".

This is a complicated matter and the aim is to understand the level of predation at all levels of size / age.

It also complicates things when the level predation can be aligned with the loss of habitat. It would be great to get data on rich habitat predation as opposed to sparse habitat predation and the comparison thereof regarding Recruitment.

I think some of you will know where I am going with this ? ><>

I would be open to all your thoughts on this subject and BTW, I don't specifically fish for Snapper, I think they are a poor quality eating fish here in Qld.... IMO... ><>

Cheers LP

[tunaticer]

I think the biggest problem that snapper face is the small size at which they are a legal fish to take......people will catch their bag limits of smaller fish easily that hopefully have bred at least one time. 4 x just legal fish is about 2kgs of fillets if you are exceptionally good at filleting.
4 just legal fish may have bred once....cumulatively probably the same amount of eggs as 1 fish at 55cm which yields far more flesh on the table.

Just like the mulloway these fish can grow to over a metre and spawn their entire life.

Just like mulloway they should increase the minimum size limit to 55cm at least.
Increasing to 55cm will add multiple more breeding cycles and vastly increase the number of eggs and young fish.

The current minimum size is by far the greatest threat to the species.

Wild predation is something we as humans can not change.....we can however change the population by increasing minimum size and more enforcement of following the rules.

Bring in rec fishing licences to fund more fisheries inspectors and inspections and catch or rout out the arseholes that do not follow the rules. I am on the water nearly every weekend of the year.....my last fisheries inspection would have been in about 2017 or 2018. That is PATHETIC.

[Volvo]

Queensland is forever changing the recreational fishing rules and regulations.

I am currently trying to understand the Snapper situation and it is not easy. I am in contact with DAF and hope to have some answers soon.

The word Recruitment, as I understand it today, means a fish has hatched and achieved a size / age that will allow it to spawn / breed.



My concerns are that the level of predation is unknown to me. Is predation, as outlined by DAF / FQ, a holistic figure ?

It is my belief that fish are subject to predation at various sizes and various amounts ( percentages ) until of course, they reach the FQ size limit, where they are subject to " human predation ".

This is a complicated matter and the aim is to understand the level of predation at all levels of size / age.

It also complicates things when the level predation can be aligned with the loss of habitat. It would be great to get data on rich habitat predation as opposed to sparse habitat predation and the comparison thereof regarding Recruitment.

I think some of you will know where I am going with this ? ><>

I would be open to all your thoughts on this subject and BTW, I don't specifically fish for Snapper, I think they are a poor quality eating fish here in Qld.... IMO... ><>

Cheers LP

Yes agree wholeheartedly with you Phil , once they come into Queensland waters to what i presume tp Spawn their eating quallity is kakka for me.
And they do land here in huge numbers at certain times of the year..

[ranmar850]

Just like mulloway they should increase the minimum size limit to 55cm at least.
Increasing to 55cm will add multiple more breeding cycles and vastly increase the number of eggs and young fish.

The current minimum size is by far the greatest threat to the species

Being a WA resident, I generally don't comment on Fisheries management in your state, although I did contribute to an earlier snapper thread re the restrictions on catch during spawning periods, and the different spawning biomasses we have to deal with. On the subject of the minimum size, increasing the size is always positive--we did it with both snapper and tailor over here back in the nineties. And guess what? Within two years, you were keeping just as many fish and they were larger. And more plentiful. The tailor one is interesting--it went from a tiny 250mm to 300( smaller than yours), and probably under first breeding size, but you cannot keep more than two over 500mm, which protects the bigger breeders, and stocks are healthy. The smaller fish are typically only caught in the Swan river anyway, you just never see them on the ocean beaches up our way.
On the subject of snapper, we went from your current size of 350mm to 410 and 500, depending on area. And it took the average size of fish up, at least in our area in just two years. and numbers went up. The only reason for not increasing it would be political, people who target the smaller fish in the sheltered waters are no doubt numerous, and often tend to be myopic. I don't tend to keep fish under 500 anyway ( legal size in this region is 410), and, as they do well with barotauma, and we fish shallow a lot, so we just keep chucking back all sizes up to 500, and keep fish judging on how well we think we can do. And with a limit of two each, you want bigger fish. Yesterday our 3 keepers were 670 to 750, day before , 550-620. Day before that, two at 500, all we caught. Because we have a limit of 2 per person with no upper size limit, and you have to fit any other prize demersals, like WA Dhufish, within the two, you often have a dilemma.

[Lovey80]

I would more than welcome a change to the MLS to say 45cm. But my most hate regulation is the 1 per person, 2 per boat regulation on fish over 70cm. For those that fish wider and deeper, there’s nothing worse than throwing back horse snapper because they’re over 70cm only for he sharks to eat them. Just allow us to take our 4/8 fish over 45cm and move onto other species.

I’d really love to see what the fisheries data would look like if they considered the Gold Coast charter data and the Moreton bay data as hyper-depleted.

[Lucky_Phill]

Additional info>

Firstly, thanks for the feedback above. I am sure we all have our own ideas on the Snapper fishery, its demise and its rescue here in Qld.

Let's look at a couple of things:-

1. Snapper ( all fish, reptiles and even humans ) at a certain age become infertile or unable to produce eggs that will turn into offspring. Female Mud Crabs for sure, Flathead also cease to bred after about 850mm. Yes, they all roe up, but those eggs will never turn into babies. Same / similar for humans. This is the basis of evolution and science proves this.

2. I believe the wild recruitment of Snapper is about 1%. Each adult egg producing and fertile female will produce about 3 million eggs. I have been told Wild Stocking of Snapper is not viable due to recruitment being only 1%. I am no mathematician, but WTF ? If you have bio-mass producing XYZ fry and 1% of those make adulthood, if you wild stock Snapper eggs, and recruitment is 1%.... what would wild stocking of a fry at 50mm be ? at 100mm be ? IMO and I am sure this can be qualified, wild stocking of 100mm Snapper will in fact result into a much better recruitment number and therefore IMO, be viable. The viability of wild stocking is questioned by FQ, but they do not take into account the Economic Benefit attached to this and therefore their assessment of viability is besmirched with inaccuracy due to the lack of all input data.

3. We ( rec and pro ) take / harvest, but we never sow. That is a recipe for disaster. I could quote hundreds of programs both marine and landbased that not only survive, but flourish when the right protocols are implemented against a resource.

4. I honestly believe FQ have a long term plan to slowly ease us ( Qld'ers ) into the 50cm or more, size limit on Snapper, they are just playing the waiting game, IMO. If they were truly keen on seeing the survival of Snapper in Qld, the 50cm size limit would have been legislated many many years ago. Why was it not ? Politics.......... simple and a fact.

5. If the common people, fishers knew the complexity of making management decisions, it would make your head spin. WE, both rec and pro’s, know what needs to be done, we know the current state of the fishery, we want to see it survive for all. Even though we have rec fishers sitting on committees and working groups, somehow our ideas never hit the ministers in-tray. From the initial idea of a working group involving stakeholders to legislation, literally take a generation, ok, I may have exaggerated there, much like the exaggeration of virgin bio-mass… Ka-Ching !!!!

6.. IMO and with about 50 years rec fishing and observing under my belt, a few years sitting on committees and countless hours reading “ papers “ of research by well qualified folks it seems to me that FQ are hamstrung, firstly by funding and secondly by politics. The Queensland Department of State Development has an unvetted obligation to promote the sustainability and profitability of Queensland. In doing so it has run roughshod over many other departments, even the EPA, in progressing their programs. Fisheries Queenslands budget is little lunch money, compared to them.

7. Sow and ye shall reap. My push on this is to have a 3 pronged strategy aimed squarely at the improvement and sustainability of the fishery, Snapper and others. Step one…. deploy as many artificial reefs as possible, step two………. Relocate Green Zones and step three …. Wild stocking of fish at a size that perpetuates an exponential increase of adult Snapper.

8. Three step reasoning. Artificial reefs replace habitat destruction, the very habitat that shelters Fry from predation and that effect right there is why we have only 1% recruitment. Fix the habitat, fix a major part of the problem. Relocating Green Zones…………. Some current ones are totally useless and some just promote an over population of predatory species. Wild Stocking………. Even at 1% recruitment, that doubles the bio-mass of adult fish in very short time. Double that in the next season and so on. The Economic Benefit is proven in past Economic Benefit Analysis for many fishery based research and papers. For FQ to tell us wild stocking is unviable is a miss-truth, IMO.

If a farmer does not sow, they will not reap, that is fact. Sow seeds to harvest crops, bred animals to multiply their numbers. Why is it so hard for FQ to see this ?

LP

[chris69]

If I don’t understand the words does that mean these rules don’t apply to me.

[Lovey80]

I’m all for that Phil. I’d also love to see a break down of all fisheries related revenue and where it is spent. I have a feeling the money they take from us is many factors more than what is out back into the system. Stocking and reef programmes could be expanded exponentially without having to fork out more for recreational fishing licences.

[chris69]

8. Three step reasoning. Artificial reefs replace habitat destruction, the very habitat that shelters Fry from predation and that effect right there is why we have only 1% recruitment. Fix the habitat, fix a major part of the problem. Relocating Green Zones…………. Some current ones are totally useless and some just promote an over population of predatory species. Wild Stocking………. Even at 1% recruitment, that doubles the bio-mass of adult fish in very short time. Double that in the next season and so on. The Economic Benefit is proven in past Economic Benefit Analysis for many fishery based research and papers. For FQ to tell us wild stocking is unviable is a miss-truth, IMO.
…"………………………………….………………… …………………….……………….. ….………………….."………………………………..

It used to be Phil 1/8 of a hectare of mangrove would produces 80k in seafood and that’s decades old stats so I’m thinking that’s a lot of artificial reefs to make up for habitat destruction.

[tunaticer]

The building of artificial reefs is a good thing however we need to change strategy a bit....creating reefs in relatively small locations simply concentrates the predation on the stocks. smaller scattered reefs will preserve stocks far better than half a dozen focal points like Harries where large numbers of boats converge.
As we have seen with isolated wrecks in the bay, they hold good fish and bait.....you do not need another 5 more wrecks beside them.

As I have said before, it would be a big benefit to create a line of reefs at the edge of the trawl boundary south to north. This can be a dotted line of smaller reefs that will create basically a fish highway and will ensure the trawlers stay on the right side of the line. The same can be done 50m outside the edge of the green zones like off Beachmere and Sandgate/Nudgee that have basically little structure within.

[Lucky_Phill]

The building of artificial reefs is a good thing however we need to change strategy a bit....creating reefs in relatively small locations simply concentrates the predation on the stocks. smaller scattered reefs will preserve stocks far better than half a dozen focal points like Harries where large numbers of boats converge.
As we have seen with isolated wrecks in the bay, they hold good fish and bait.....you do not need another 5 more wrecks beside them.

As I have said before, it would be a big benefit to create a line of reefs at the edge of the trawl boundary south to north. This can be a dotted line of smaller reefs that will create basically a fish highway and will ensure the trawlers stay on the right side of the line. The same can be done 50m outside the edge of the green zones like off Beachmere and Sandgate/Nudgee that have basically little structure within.

Yep and yep, I am not talking about isolated reefs and especially wrecks... wrecks are crap arti reefs, too expensive and too concentrated... great for scuba divers and that's it.

Rolling out artificial reefs in areas from adjacent to and adjoining mangroves to existing natural structures is a small part of the program ideals. I am not talking about a small reef here and there, but a prolific roll out of hundreds or more acres in areas that need it, like Moreton Bay. Rebuilding habitat is critical and that simply means restoration of shoreline habitat, you know, replacing all the habitat and environment pillaged in the name of progress.

I see that Ozfish are deploying Oyster Reefs in areas across the country and well done to them, albeit with no help from the Government, but from private enterprise. https://ozfish.org.au/

Countries like Korea spend millions every year constructing and deploying arti reefs for commercial and recreational purposes, to huge economic advantage. To be economically worthwhile lends itself to being habitat worthwhile and fishery worthwhile.

here is a little sample of Koreas efforts

In Korea, artificial reefs have been installed since the 1970s at many coastal areas for the enhancement of fisheries productivity. They are constructed and installed as government-subsidized projects. Reefs installed in Korea include eight designs—five are for fish and the other three are for shellfish or seaweeds. Concrete and steel are used as reef materials, but concrete reefs amount to over 90% of the total installations. Classified on the basis of void space, reef structures are either frame or face (substrate structure) types. Frame structural reefs are used for fish, and face structural reefs are chiefly used for shellfish or seaweeds. Artificial reef size in Korea is divided into the three categories: unit block, reef set, and reef group. Investigation of the effectiveness of artificial reefs in Korea has been carried out since 1975, and six sites are monitored every year. Among the results, the catch volume per reef was 2–13 times greater in artificial reefs than in natural reefs. Korea plans to invest over $2 billion (U.S.) in these projects for the enhancement of coastal fisheries productivity over the next six years.


Food for thought FQ and State Development................. 2 - 13 times greater................ need I repeat that ????????????

LP

[Dignity]

And the destruction of mangroves for building marinas, waterfront estates etc need to stop as 90% of fish start their life in the mangroves, even marlin fingerlings. I recall the mangroves being removed in Cornmeal Creek, Maroochydore for the expansion of the shopping centre. Apparently mangroves were to be planted elsewhere to supplement the removed ones plus additional ones as well, I've never been able to find out if or where this occurred. Developers and especially Councils need to be held accountable.

[Noelm]

I think you will have no chance of stopping “progress” everyone wants to live on the coast, everyone wants a marina/ramp/harbour and with that comes restaurants, pubs, shops and houses, people living in the “burbs” don’t care about Mangroves, to them they are just Mosquito infested swamp, to a green, it’s a “fragile wetland” to a developer/council, it’s a license to make money to flatten it and fill it with dirt, construct a few canals and flog it off then move on! Look at Mooloolaba, Kawana, Wurtulla, Twin Waters and these are only places I know as a tourist, don’t get me wrong, I am 100% on your side, but, reality is a very different beast.

[tunaticer]

And the destruction of mangroves for building marinas, waterfront estates etc need to stop as 90% of fish start their life in the mangroves, even marlin fingerlings. I recall the mangroves being removed in Cornmeal Creek, Maroochydore for the expansion of the shopping centre. Apparently mangroves were to be planted elsewhere to supplement the removed ones plus additional ones as well, I've never been able to find out if or where this occurred. Developers and especially Councils need to be held accountable.

I am pretty sure all mangrove forests ate protected from any form of interference these days.
One of the reasons why the future marina in Caboolture River is most likely one of the last that will be approved.

[Lovey80]

What about places like the western part of the bay that are adjacent to that heavy industry/airport? Acres and acres of mud filled bottom that is just slightly too deep for mangroves to naturally establish (but shallow enough to be un-navigatable by boat). Some geo-engineering could dredge that mud into man made rock walls to establish hundreds of little islands where mangroves could be established to replace the acres that have been destroyed over the years. Oysters established along the rock walls that establish the little islands. Huge areas of habitat that would congregate small fish like fingerling snapper where they don’t need to stray into the sandy areas that trawlers frequent.

on the reefs, I’m primarily Sunshine Coast based. Between Caloundra and Noosa there is football field after football field of rocky reef out to 60m all along that area where trawlers can’t work or wreck their nets. All of that rubble bottom could easily be enhanced with artificial reef structures to add to what is already there. We have how many millions of tonnes of unused concrete for construction projects that has to be recycled or disposed of. The same places that would build the reef structures could be set up for concrete trucks to dump left over concrete in already set up concrete molds for free.

I am sure the Gold Coast would have plenty of rubble bottom that could be enhanced also. East of Moreton/straddle too. Once that is saturated, move north all the way past Fraser.

before you NQ rednecks pipe up, You got the GBR.