Did You Know

[stevedemon]

if you all look in all the Books from Beacon to Beacon, hooked in Paradise your Tide books it has Bag limits not in Possesion as I have been in form today that all Fish Species are in Possesion not Bag limits at all so is it my ingorance or that the Goveernment bodies are hiding things just to gain more revenue just interested if others believe the same as I always have so take the time to vote

PLEASE

Cheers
Steve

[SteveCan]

Hi Steve,

Correct me if I am wrong - but at the moment we have bag limits but when the RIS reccomendations pass into legislation we will have in posession limits instead.

When does the new legislation come into effect?

Cheers
Steve.

[Big_Muddie]

Steve,

Prior to the changes in tailor regulations i thought that the limits were bag limits - not in possession limits.

When the tailor changes came out I looked closely and saw that "in possesion" was the phrase being used. I have no idea if they really meant that prior to the tailor changes - it's all academic really.

Since then, I have looked closely at the tables provided in the Official Tide Tables book and the 2003 edition states "in possesion" and defines it. The 2002 edition is the same.

However, The Great Outdoors Tide Guide (2002 and 2003 editions) only talks about "limits" and "bag limits" with no apparent definition - at least i can't see one.

As for other publications I can't comment.

I am not convinced that Gov't bodies are hiding anything - I think they are now beginning to clarify things - but I am always prepared to be wrong . Perhaps some more widely dispersed information on "bag" vs "in possesion" would have been a better move on their part but at the end of the day it's our responsibilty as fishermen to make sure we are fully aware of all the rules etc.

Personally, I will not be sitting down to read the relevant legislation and amendments to make myself totally aware - no time for fishing then. I do however use the Official Tide Tables book rather than the Great Outdoors publication although I buy both.

In closing, I will simply say that in 45 years of fishing I have NEVER had my catch checked for either size or number - one day I will but that doesn't bother me - I stick to the rules and if I have them wrong then I will cop it sweet.

Good post and poll Steve - I'm sure many are not aware of the issue you have raised.

[jaybee]

Hi steve
you are right in one instance, it use to be or still is rather except for tailor per person per day, when the new regs come in, they are pushing before everone goes on holidays, it will be in possesion, I am lead to beleive it is in possesion per person though, this has not be clarified, however mixed reef limit has i beleive been dropped from 30, still not clarified. This is in your boat regardless of how many fish from the boat, we have been screwed once again. NSW has in possesion limits, but with the new QLD law, NSW looks more likely for fishing, however, what happens if we get pulled up coming home in QLD with a QLD over possesion limit we caught in NSW. MMMMMM Maybe they have done it this way to stop us spending money over the border, but what about all the NSW guys that come up here fishing, what is going to happen to the tourist dollar.
cheers.

[Mad_Barry]

"Down South" was always "bag Limits" but QLD has been "In Possession" (very different).

I don't think it has been hidden, it's just that most are more in tune with southern media, magazines etc.

here's the rec rule & regs, (keep scrolling down, she's a long page )

http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/fishweb/2881.html

or the full fish web site

http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/fishweb/

I've been pulled over for a yack several times up this way for license (boat), crab pot & "esky" check.

Nice blokes & Ladies generally, though have never had my boat catch checked against what could actually be my total "in possession", be it home or otherwise.

[stevedemon]

Hi All
Sorry to be the bringer of bad news but according to the Legislation in the wording from Government it is in Possesion not Bag Limits as stated and that has always been the rule
So I have been informed I have also done a little checking myself today and the wording is there of in Possesion not Bag Limits this means what you have in your freezer or your boat (sucks I know) but just thought I would bring this to everyones atttention so if your caught as it was told to me ingorance is not a excuse but that facts remain if your caught you take in any of the books you have such as Tide books, Beacon To Beacon and Hooked in paradise to this it should hold up in the courts like any thing the Government once agian though there ingorance has failed to let the public know of what is going on so just food for thought all sorry about puttting a downer on it people but who wishers to pay the Government any more money than need be

Cheers
Steve

[Vern_Veitch]

That's the way I understand it. There maybe bad ,imits in other states but it has always been in possession in Queensland.
So why, in the Coral Reef RIS is a higher limit being proposed for rec fishers who fish from a charter boat. It is not as if we can go out 2 days in a row and bring back more in our own boat. Seems a bit discriminatory doesn't it. Like buyingthe right to take more fish because you've got more money.
Vern
Vern

[bugman]

Guys,

Just to add to the debate - the new size restrictions and bad limits are in place as of now. Without getting too technical the proposed bill has been tabled on the florr of Parliament.

This effectively makes it law until a vote has been conducted in the house. It's like an interum law but still enforceable. So despite Parliament being in recess and the members not voting on the new bill it is effectively in place.

When Parliament returns the house will vote and the new bill will be made into absolute law courtesy of the Government absolute majority in the house.

So for all those waivering or wondering what's happening over Xmas - brush up on the new regs now because they will be enforced over the break.

Brett

[Fitzy]

To the best of my knowlege, all Qld fish that are subject to a bag limit, are "In Possession". A bag limit does not mean that is isn't "in possession", in Qlds case it does.
I've never thought otherwise because it plainly says as much in the Fisheries Act. This isn't a top secret document, rather it is readily available for anyone to read. Also please see the QFS website page http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/fishweb/2881.html
Waving a non-government pamflet, book, brochure &/or scrap of paper that state otherwise will help you little in front of a judge I'm afraid.
Making the assumption that a bag limit is only what you have with you leaves a big area there for exploitation of the fishery, which I am dead set against. If you've already got a freezer full of fish, why should you be allowed to go out & get some more??

Bugman, I'm sceptical about the proposed changed being enforced "before" it is actually passed. There is no guarantee that they will be. They also need to advertise the changes (if adopted) to the general public via the media. A half decent barrister would blow any fine/conviction out of the water I'd think.

Cheers,

Fitzy..

[Lucky_Phill]

A person must not take or possess more than the specified bag limit for individual species of reef fish. In addition, a person may not have more than a combined total of 30 of the listed reef fish species or 60 fillets. Any combination ot whole fish and fillets must not exceed the equivalent ot 30 whole fish. Two fillets equals one whole fish.

This 'is' the extract from the regs, as you can see JB, it is ' per person' and not per boat.

Shit, guys, if I can boat 30 reefies, basically over 35cms and of different species, I'd be happier than a pig in *&%t.

Should I venture out the next day with different deckies and catch more, well, they'll have to keep them for me.

What I'm saying is, " realisticly", you won't have a QFS cop knockin down your door to check your freezer, this won't happen as other laws cover this and it'll get complicated. Also, you should be eating / quoffing/ gutzing down your catch as soon as possible, as fresh is best !

I think Fitzy is right, you won't see anyone gettin knocked off over the chrissie break for over the limit catches. Let's try the Bay, 5 Squire over 35cms is a damn good feed, chuck in a couple of Sweeties and a Flattie, and that's a good day out.

OK, so you're offshore, your squire turn into Snapper, add, a Trevally or three, Moses Perch and Moari cod, assisted by a Parrot and 2 dolphin Fish. I am complaining ?

You end up with nowhere near your bag limit / possession limit, you've had a good day, got a feed and can safely go out the next day and do it all over again. Beats workin !

Let's not worry about what NSW are doing, they don't count, cause we got the Trophy ( carn' the Cane Toads ).

I appreciate your concern Steve, but when all is said and done, we're still in good shape to catch a feed and then some !

We should be looking forward to a couple of years time when the Spotties are back, Squire over 35 are in good numbers and the netters are all gone ( wishfull thinking, that one )

Maybe we should do a poll and ask who has caught their bag limit of 30 Squire / Snapper ?

??? 8)

[stevedemon]

Hi All
I fully agree with your points on the fishing side of it as for the comment
(go the Cane Toads) will thats another dicussion there guy's I still say go the blues.
but in all fairness people they up the limit for the Commercial's and cut the Recreatational fishers catch is all I was saying in my statement but also to let you all know that it is in possesion not Bag limits per/person per/day anyway as Lp has stated we can all hope that the fishing will return to the bay and the Estraury's and the Commercial will not be there for long

Cheers
Steve

[jaybee]

Hey guys
The page on fishweb hasnt been updated yet, it is still the same as it was back on the 13/05/02 when i printed a copy out. Here is the proposed amendments in particular 1.5 which i beleive a couple of people have covered.

1.5 Regulated fish (i.e. fish taken in excess of a bag limit)
Some confusion exists regarding interpretation of the provisions within the Regulation (and some management
plans) regarding regulated fish with respect to limits on taking and/or possession of certain numbers of fish
(often referred to as ‘bag limits’).
Specifically, relevant concerns relate to the use of the terms ‘take’ and ‘possession’ and the meanings of those
terms as they are used for prohibitions about regulated fish. Ordinarily, with fish that are regulated by size,
gender or other physical characteristics it is possible to determine that a person has either taken or possesses
such a regulated fish and the relevant offence can be proven. However, when fish are regulated by limits on
numbers confusion arises, primarily with regard to the time periods during which the prohibitions on taking and
possession apply. Some people, for example, believe (incorrectly) that bag limits apply on a daily basis and
that if a number limit for a species of fish appears in the Regulation then that is the number a person may take
each day.
Under the Regulation as it is currently drafted, it is only an offence to possess fish regulated by number if they
were taken in excess of that number. In other words, this is not a straight out limit on the number of fish that a
person may possess, regardless of the circumstances. This causes difficulties for fishers and enforcement
officers, as it is often impossible to determine whether fish were taken in one fishing ‘episode’ or not. For
example, if a person takes less than the permitted number of fish on one day and takes a similar number for
the next three days, that person could potentially possess a large number of fish, none of which are regulated.
The intention of the regulated fish provisions is to allow fishers to take a certain number of fish and be
prohibited from taking more than that number unless and until those fish are no longer in their possession, for
example, until they have been consumed, given away, or otherwise disposed of. This is intended in order to
achieve an ongoing and enforceable limit on the number of fish that a person can take and retain at any given
time, while ensuring that a person is only committing an offence by being in possession of a number of fish if
they took those fish themselves.
For these reasons, it is proposed to amend the Regulation (and some management plans) to provide that all
fish subject to a limit on numbers are also subject to a restriction on the number of fish of that species that a
person can possess, irrespective of when the fish were taken. However, it is recognised that people will
sometimes be in possession (or appear to be in possession) of fish regulated by number that they did not take
themselves. It is, therefore, proposed that such people will not be subject to the relevant offence provisions if
they can substantiate the fact that they did not take the fish in question.

[bugman]

Fitzy,

On the topic of enforcement - I'm afraid that QFS officers and I think Dept of Transport marine division have the complete right to enforce the new regs.

The way this stuff comes into law isn't any different to any other bill. Once it's tabled on the floor it's a law until voted out or changed. That's why the government announced the new regs before Parliament broke which effectively enabled them to get the new regs in place before the Chistmas break.

This also means that the banning of all netting for spottie mackeral is in place for commercial fisherman as well - as of now.

It's often a political tactic to drop these things into parliament as the break's about to happen therefore getting the law into place for a while, Governments have been doing it for a while - they will try every trick in the book - it's their job.

Brett

[jaybee]

Hey Brett
Not much good putting a law in place if they are not going to update their fisweb page, as Fitzy said, its not a top secret document. Over Christmas if you are going fishing I would check the web site before I go and print it out, as you know it will have the date on the bottom of each page when it was printed and where it was printed from. Better still print out a copy now, that way you can keep a check on it.
cheers.

[Vern_Veitch]

I agree with Bugman. A website is NOT legislation. There is no shortage of info published in the media on this. If in doubt, check the legislation or ring QB&FP but my bet is that once tabled, the new regs apply.
Vern