Acceptable practice

[Kerry]

Kerry,
If seeing recos going out and catching they're bag limits and also having high expectations upsets you then imagine how you feel about the other side bringing in undersized fish and crabs for the markets(fact not perception). I'm not drawing any equations because there isn't any. They'res is a livelyhood and ours is enjoyment and to catch the odd feed on the whole. The fact we both catch fish is about the extent of our similarities. A lot of what you say is very vague and if your as straight to the point as you say you are maybe a lot of us will understand exactly where you are coming from. I have heard what pisses you off about recos fair enough but isn't there anything the pros could do better? PS I am all for smaller bag limits.
Cheers Luke

Luke, I think I've said this before that if it's outside the conditions then it's illegal so that should be easy to fix, shouldn't it.

If the public don't buy it, the fishmonger won't sell it, the fishmarket's won't accept it then there's no market for it but apart from that it's illegal so why does it keep on happenning, you tell me? obviously you've singled out the preferred personal target.

Really this type of talk gets back to this apparent thought that on one side it's only one individual acting alone as compared to the rec entourage. By that I mean when one talks about buying out licences the general referal is it's only a license, one individual where as a rec angler supports everybody from the tackle shop to the baker.

Both sides have downsteam spin-offs unless of course the pro runs his activities from under a hollow log based on thin air.

Mate, I think lots of people in both areas can do a lot better but tunnel vision isn't a good attribute.

If you take the number of times I've heard how fish farms, acquaculture will solve all out problems, eliminate those dreaded pro's etc etc that clearly shows some simply have this blantant miss-understanding of an overall complex situation.

As for reducing bag limits well again that's probably not an overall remidy. Might be in some cases for some specific species but overall I don't give it a hope in hell of being totally effective.

One of those cases where SIZE really might matter as if anybody thinks for a sec that some rec's won't keep throwing the little ones away as the bigger ones come aboard then there;'s probably fairies at the bottom of their garden.

For many species SIZE should be more the limit than a number, numbers really don't mean much.

Cheers, Kerry.

[Vern_Veitch]

There is a good reason why sand crabs get tipped - Fisheries Officers then must measure them from front to rear and that is a more generous (smaller) measure than if the tips are still there. Not saying they are tipped deliberately.
Do not underestimate the flow on effects of expenditure by recreational fishers. It is an estimated $1 billion pa in Queensland and at about 1 job for each $100 000 spent, that is a lot of jobs. I believe that is a very conservative conversion ratio if there are any economists out there.

[Kerry]

Vern, obviously numbers can be interesting things and made to fit different scenario's (just ask any ex accountants from some recent large companies) and obviously the numbers originating from both sides don't equate, which is no surprise either.

I suppose the silly question ???, is there a comparative number breakdown on just how/when/where all the numbers were derived and how does one look at these numbers in context.

I'm no economist either but how many recreational fishers equate to one commercial in a true sense.

Cheers, Kerry.

[Vern_Veitch]

Kerry,
it depends on what sort of equation you are looking for. Are you after numbers of people employed or numbers of fish caught or overall benefit to the economy?
A good place to start is to look at the QDPI's QFS Rfish Database report which tels you how many recreational fishers, their approximate catch in individual fish (not tonnage) and then compare that with some of the discussion papers which tell you the commercial declared catch. Doesn't take much figuring out to see tonnage multiplied by what is charged in the fish mongers shops to see what the value of a commercial fishery is.
The recreational is a bit more complex but studies in 3 seperate states by different organisations have all come remarkebly close to the figure of $1000 per angler per annum average spent on going fishing.
In the coral trout fishery the commercial declared catch is about 1500 tonne and the price for live trout is about $50 per kg depending on the time of year. Rec fisho's catch about 300 tonne according to the figures in the RFISH database.
Tailor is about 200 tonne at about a max of $2 per kg for the netters on the Sydney Fish Markets, there are about 150 000 rec anglers who caught them in the last survey. Add three zeros to that figure for a rough expenditure. Even if you halved the estimated rec expenditure, you would have to be crazy to let the netters continue.
I don't amke these figures up - I use what is available from the government and is generaly publicly available in shops or on the web.
Vern

[Kerry]

Vern, I was probably more thinking along the an overall economic line but I woudn't have a clue how or what's been the economic value definition.

I suppose I way I look at it is what I spend on fuel, bait, tackle, ice, service, upgrades, maintainance, rego's, vehicles and whatever other needs/requirements and I suppose that includes our boat builders etc etc (whole range of things I suppose one could include when one really thinks about it)
On some days I might be a fisher and another a straight boatie etc so I'm not all that sure how is it all comes out in the final wash.

On the other hand the local commercial people but a hell of a lot more fuel from the same place I do, outboard operators will change over every 12 months (I might every 15 years?) and similar with all those other things that require service industries (marina's, slips, maintainance, engineers and suppliers of all kinds which beneift and then even the downstream requirements too numerous to mention.

I suppose that type of economic benefit is different to how one looks at economic return as return over the wharf is way way different to return over the counter.

As I've said somewhere else I don't have any background on the tailor issues because they simply don't exist here but with everything I like to hear both sides and the facts to go with them. Somebody mentioned I'd make a good politician but unfortuneately I'm a Yes man

I suppose if somebody asked me how much to run the boat, lets say it's about $52/hour, then if someone asks the cost to operate the boat then it's probably something like $240/hour and both queries sound very similar but the way I look at the figures they are very different.

Cheers, Kerry.

[Vern_Veitch]

Kerry,
I guess recreational expenditure is like recreational catch. Each of spends a little bit but at the end of the day it adds up to a lot. A quick desktop study done to assess the potential impact of salmon disease a few years back estimated recreational fishing as spending nearly $3 billion a year and the authors stated that this was deliberately conservative. the figure could be nearly double.
The total landed catch in the commercial sector was less than $2 billion based on hard data.
That does not mean we should shut down the commercial sector - quite the opposite.
What it does mean is that we must maximise the economic benefit to the broader community from a finit resource. Look at the NT - their barra fishery has a total of 23 operators. They have closed a number of complete river systems and are raking in the tourist dollars.
A US Study into wild salmon found that one fish was worth about $14 to the community if caught by commercial and over $50 if caught by recreational. Where would you sell it?
In some areas, commercial and recreational can live together but in many they cannot. We now get a lot of feedback along the lines of "I use to go fishing but when the fishing dropped off, I decided I wasn't enjoying it anymore."
That sort of situation costs jobs.
We need to strike a balance that ensures quality recreational fishing and a sustainable commercial fishery but at present, there is no balance at all. The fishery in Queensland is managed on a first in best dressed basis and recreational fishers can't get their first because of work, weather, family, etc, etc.
NSW is following the NT model for fixing the imbalance.
I'd be keen to hear any other solutions but we cannot rely on goodwill on either side as there is none. You would be amazed at the political backstabbing that I have witnessed behind the scenes. Forget the management, this is a political game and the politicians must make the decisions.
From this point on, no decision is a decision in favour of the commercials.

[Fitzy]

I guess everyone has heard the one about the fisho who thought he's work out how much he spent on a fishing trip?

Anyway the total cost (ice, fuel, gear, oil, bait etc) for one trip was say $50 & he came home with one flathead for dinner. The wife told him "if it cost you $50 to catch one flathead I'm glad you didn't catch 2".