POLL - Fishery Survey - Help Them or Not

[gunna]

I put a fishing report up the other day and mentioned that Fisheries were at the ramp doing a survey. I was cleaning my catch so I didn't have a choice over whether I revealed my catch. He just measured and recorded the catch.

I joked about undersize fish - he pointed out that it wasn't that sort of a check. It was a survey of rec fishos. When I asked why he was fairly vague but did say that the recs always complain about the trawlers, the trawlers always complain about the recs. So they are trying to see who has the better claim!!

I was surprised that just about every boat that came in said they had no fish. Dunno if they were being deceitful - or didn't catch anything. When I posted my report and mentioned fisheries one of our members promptly posted

"i always tell them i catch nothing no mate nothing today"

Which got me thinking. We know that Fisheries could not possibly have proper data for the snapper fishery and we complain about their subsequent decision making. They want data for the estuary fisho. Do we trust them ?? Should we tell them our day's catch. Particularly when we only have a couple fish - surely that tells them something. Are we better off if they have the correct data or should we tell them nothing.

Interested in your thoughts.

[Noelm]

OK, lets just think for a second, they are doing a survey on (say) Snapper, after checking the catch of 500 anglers, there was only 10 Snapper caught, (because everyone lied) so, what does that indicate straight away, Snapper are very scarce, so lets put a ban on them! anyone agree with that?

[FNQCairns]

NO too early!! wait first until the Libs trump labor so we first get to see some management and proper science from Fishery's, a leopard doent change it's spots ...they today can still be judged no higher than their past corrupt and anti Angler behavior...no better indicator available for all future behavior.

[Chris Ryan]

Noel, there are two sides to the coin as you know.

1) Tell the bastard nothing. Give em nothing - research suffers, assumptions made are negative towards the fishery re: catch numbers and bans etc occur

2) Tell them the truth - research works and results are better, however government data can be and is shared and Environment types see the fish being caught out of what areas and zoning potentially impacts.

I'm a glass is half full bloke so I say help them and let them know the truth. The zoning issues are not fisheries related so no matter what is said, I prefer to have fisheries say "very healthy and all good" so we use that as arguments against closures.

Just my opinion.

[peterbo3]

Chris,
Ya know full well that ANY statistic can be rotated, manipulated & spun to suit the agenda of the statistic holder. And in most cases that is:

dodgyanna@georgestreet.gov.qld

[shanejohnson]

They use these stats with other stats to create more marine parks, more restrictions; tell them nothing

[rando]

I disagree Chris.
The departments charter is to manage the fishery for the maximum benefit of the commercial sector.
When, and only when, they start managing for the benefit of recreational fishers do we give them access to info.
I am not saying manage for rec fishers benefit only.
I am saying rec fishers are the largest stake holders in the fishery.
When "Fisheries" show consistantly they have the best interests of the major stake holders as their top priority, then by all means give them as much backing as possable.IMO

rando

[Gazza]

With a faulty model of "BIOMASS" based on RecFisho tonnage....i say "no"

Reasoning :-* ..G.I.G.O...garbage-in-GARBAGE-OUT

[Chaz]

What's really sad about the number of No votes is that they probably came from the same people who bitch about bad science being used to make decisions about fishery management.

Chaz

[liltuffy]

Do you all honestly believe that a change in premier and cabinet also involves a change in every staff member of every department and shift in attitude and research ???
I was a public servant for 17 years and saw many governments come and go - did it matter a pig's grunt who was in power - NO, the wheels still turned in the same general direction no matter who was at the helm.

Sure "Can Do Campbell" will change things for us and I hope that the green tinged Labour party are polled in to political obscurity for an eternity BUT do we collectively cross our arms and shrug our shoulders at some poor public servant out to legitimately gather some data his supervisor has tasked him to do??, I think not.

Without accurate statistics we stand little hope of taking a credible stance against these tools - but I may just be too naive and stupid.

My two cents worth

Craig

[Gazza]

Without accurate statistics we stand little hope of taking a credible stance against these tools - but I may just be too naive and stupid.
My two cents worth
CraigGR8 post mate.....agreed , too naive & stupid ;D

MY counter suggestion to HELP determine "biomass" modelling...a.k.a. "year class"

Fisheries go on some trawlers , BRD's closed !! , ....seems like 5~7 metres...NOT deeper , NOT OFTEN ....& stop often to C&R the undersized & data-gather :2thumbsup:

and provide themselves "projected year-class" BIOMASS data...in real world info. :2thumbsup: :o

[johncar]

It seems a bit pointless in a way to check catches at boat ramps as it's only a small part of the big picture when measuring total mass of Rec fish.

How can they possibly know how many of us go out and how often, how many in the boat?
Yes there are a handfull of really keen fishos who are out in all weather and every chance they get. There are others who get out once a year.

I don't know about you guys but although I have been keener in times gone by, I am about a once a monther or there abouts and on those trips I would most always make my bag limit on my target fish without too much problem or at least get a decent feed. I would still consider myself keener than the average boat owner as I know heaps who never use their boats.
Now my family would have two fish meals a week and I would still give some to my parents and so on. So I think that the current regs are OK for me. The once a year guy may not have enough fish for the year though.
I don't know what the guys who go out every week do with their fish and it's a bit of a worry. They are either bad fishermen or they just have big families to feed, and hopefully doing a responible thing.

I haven't been surveyed but I hope that they ask for all the information and not just "what did you catch today"
I would be happy to give honest answers because I think it is better than them being fed BS from the Commercial operators and making silly guesstimates based on ill conceived presumtions.
Most days out on the ocean I hardly see another boat all day so it's hard for me to accept that I having any negative impact and I would be happy to have any Fisheries guys on board. I've nothing to hide.

There seems to be more research and fact finding being done now so I hope that it will find it's way to the truth and give the powers that be the amunition they need to address the practices of some commercial operators and in particular the mass harm done by trawl nets..

[Camhawk88]

Great poll Gunna. Interesting also to see that as I type it is 15 to 20 in favour of reporting/assisting.
For the record i voted yes as well. While there is no doubt data can and is manipulated, also remember that if you are asked your catch and you say nothing caught then that is data- and can be used to suit their purposes if there is an agenda.
I understand the trust issues as we have been burnt before however we can hardly complain about their being not enough data on rec effort if we dont help out- we cant have it both ways. Also worth considering that the data collected today may be very important 20, 30 or 50 years down the track. No one knows what will happen then but this historical data may be invaluable in helping the rec fishos cause- you never know.

[wags on the water]

I for one will share my info with them - not where but what I have caught. If you want Fisheries to do their own research, then won't that be them also being a rec fishos? Someone needs to gather info so let's provide them with the facts and not let them assume.

Cheers,
Wags

[Si]

yes, of course. my taxes pay for these things and i would rather see a decision or better management change based on a large sample size than a non-representative limited one that is perhaps skewed by conspiracy theorists that wont give up the data.

In saying that i was surprised that the officer stated that they (dpi) had never really determined the effort or take of rec fishos. what have they been doing for the last ten years????

[Noelm]

I have sort of evidence that not all stats are used to sink rec fishos, and maybe even help, we had a survey done almost exactly like this in my area, there was volunteers at every ramp, 7 days a week for about 3 months, they collected stuff like, how long where you out, how many on board, how many fish and what species they were, how many boats used each ramp, how many cars had to park away from the ramp, all sorts of seemingly useless info. The end result was the busiest ramp got the most money spent on it (Local Council) also increased parking, the Fisheries SEEMED to increase patroling the ramps with the most catch, NO marine parks or reduced bag limits eventuated (yet) Now I am not saying this is what you could be in for, but to be paranoid and say nothing just gives US nothing as evidence to fight with, emotion and hysteria will never win any arguments against facts and figures, regardless of how they are obtained.

[Noelm]

I will do some probing and see if the data collected is available for the general public to see, I would kind of reckon it would be, or at least the resuts/findings should be. I still think WE should give as much honest data as we can, even if in the back of our minds we think some super spies maybe going to use it against us.

[Noelm]

right, here is the good oil (maybe) from a guy at the Fisheries that is/was in charge of the surveys, the results will be made public soon (maybe a month or so he said) it will be in the form of a district by district "zone" and you locate your zone, lets say Illawarra for me, then your ramp, Shellharbour, then species, or a total whatever you want, and it will show total catch per species, total catch effort, average size and so on, he claims the data was not collected with any specific interest (pro, rec, greens, marine parks) and is to be used as a benchmark so they have SOMETHING scientific to relate to, the surveys were done for 2 consective years, and for a 3 month duration, (summer for us) done 7 days a week at every ramp in all locations, those being, Sydney, Illawarra and South Coast, and others are being done now, they are going to miss one year (this one) and do it again next year and the following year. Now, this may have half of bugger all to do with your surveys being conducted, but maybe the QLD and NSW guys are doing something constructive as a whole, or maybe it will bite us on the bum, however it pans out, at least there is some kind of provable data available from a rec point of view.

[Noelm]

Sorry this bit was deleted, info was not 100% fisheries correct.

[Scott nthQld]

Whether or not they have an agenda, I think that we should report our catches accurately when asked. provide as much information as you wish, but it would be my suggestion that you be vague about location (but still truthful) Insterad of saying "I caught these snaps at mud island", just say Moreton bay, if they ask for more details, just say all over the place, i did a lot of travelling today.

Everyone on here has had a whinge and a bitch about dodgy science and data, well now they are trying to get the data, and people are still whinging. No data, no results, just opinion, good data, and results can be skewed, but at least there is data to back it up and run other models etc, AT LEAST THERE WILL BE DATA to take reference from.

[STUIE63]

Only works if they do every boat every ramp every day and night for a set piece of time like nsw not an adhoc bit here bit there approach if you get a good weekend weather then every boat goes out and gets a feed but if the following year the weather was bad then the catch rates will be down because bugger all went out
I voted no by the way I got stung with GBRMP and will never again

[Noelm]

I think that is why NSW did it the way they did, I know they were there every day, not all night though as we do not do much night fishing at all, we were not asked where we caught fish as such, but a more general question like, "how far have you travelled" all ramps were covered, including lakes and rivers, so the data will be very comprehensive, even if they counted (say) 200 boats on a single day, but only 150 supplied a record, then that too is entered, so any info could contain a caveat to cover that too. I still maintain it will be a good thing in years to come, over a period of several surveys, a proper catch record will be obtained, whether this shows stability, decline or increase is anyones guess.

[TheGurn]

I don't have any faith in how the survey data is extrapolated, or that all variables are considered, or that changes aren't imposed just for political gain.

But I'm also aware that it's too late to object to the quality, quantity and relevance of the data through submissions or at 'consultative' meetings after it has been 'processed' and 'analysed'.
That boat has sailed and I doubt basing an argument to bring it back on alternate data would be considered, and anything you provide in the way of catch experiences become anecdotal evidence when it could have been statistical.

So I participate in the surveys, and trust that enough data can be collected for someone intelligent to mount a convincing and successful argument against an objectionable outcome using that same data.

It would be great to see enough collected to at least successfully argue against employing the green trump card, the 'Precautionary Principle'.
Our biggest threat.

And I'm always wondering, while I'm in that 'happy place' I go to when the inevitable shafting is underway, whether my contribution at the boat ramp added to or subtracted from my current discomfort.

Cheers

[robersl]

Hi Pete they are at Donnybrook most weekends mainly at high tide at the ramp i normaly let that guy check my catch as long i am not in a hurry to get home i have had a chat with him on a few occasions.
as jono-ss said in his post below
The guy was likely to be one of our casual staff who is trained to carry out surveys at boat ramps. He would have been collecting research data mainly on the length of fish being caught. This is part of a routine monitoring program to collect biological data, and you can find some information on about it on http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/28_12885.htm.

The data aren't collected with the aim of estimating how many fish get caught in total - only what the overall length frequency (i.e. relative abundance of different sized fish) is of the catch. This is valuable information as it can, for example, be used to help estimate the relative abundance of different aged fish (called age structure). Age structure is one of the critical bits of information if you want to assess the status of fish stocks.

And i for 1 don't have a problem with letting them check so i voted yes

[devocean]

My two cents. The last boat ramp poll I took part in made up my mind. Couple of marine biologists asking people how many parrot fish they caught. I had been spear fishing some trout but had been filming big school of napolean and other parrot all day. When they told us we had been spering they said they were not interested in our catch because we werent fishing?????
Second when I explained that parrot in NQ are rarely caught on line because they eat mostly eat coral they didnt care. I then asked if they wanted to see the pics of schools of parrot I had filmed ll day they said they were not interested.

These guys only take what they want to see- typical data crunchers. No bloody idea

[TheRealAndy]

I will happily give them data. I have met some of the scientists, and its not the conspiracy theory that most think it is.

[Si]

I will happily give them data. I have met some of the scientists, and its not the conspiracy theory that most think it is.

yep, couldnt agree more. most are hard working, honest dedicated people and are genuinely interested in gaining more knowledge to better understand our fisheries.

[Camhawk88]

My two cents. The last boat ramp poll I took part in made up my mind. Couple of marine biologists asking people how many parrot fish they caught. I had been spear fishing some trout but had been filming big school of napolean and other parrot all day. When they told us we had been spering they said they were not interested in our catch because we werent fishing?????
Second when I explained that parrot in NQ are rarely caught on line because they eat mostly eat coral they didnt care. I then asked if they wanted to see the pics of schools of parrot I had filmed ll day they said they were not interested.

These guys only take what they want to see- typical data crunchers. No bloody idea

If the study concerned the effects of line fishing on parrot (which by the sounds of it , it was) then the information you had to offer was irrelevant. I'm sure if they wanted data on the numbers of parrot etc, then they would be performing a visual transect rather than surveying fishermen.

[Noelm]

It may also be very possible that they have done (or are going to do) a seperate survey on the population by diving and so on, although to be ignored is propbaly not going to give you a good impression of them.

[devocean]

I was told they were collecting data on the no of take species of parrot fish. Id say that would include divers and fishermen. Second, when I asked them how many they had counted they said none for the day and they went on to say that they must be in short supply or limited in population. I then went on to say that I had easily seen over a hundred parrot for the day.
These crap studies were the same ones done by those fools who did the Grey Nurse Numbers which was the biggest joke. Check out the great shark count data and you will see why?

[TheRealAndy]

I was told they were collecting data on the no of take species of parrot fish. Id say that would include divers and fishermen. Second, when I asked them how many they had counted they said none for the day and they went on to say that they must be in short supply or limited in population. I then went on to say that I had easily seen over a hundred parrot for the day.
These crap studies were the same ones done by those fools who did the Grey Nurse Numbers which was the biggest joke. Check out the great shark count data and you will see why?

The people collecting the data are not the scientists, so what they say is not really relevent.

[FNQCairns]

The great unwashed have absolutely no idea what environmental science is about today and the marine sciences is at the forefront of it...absolutely.

If the scientists did not have a pointed ideological direction to take the survey/research/experiment/data results then they wouldn't bother, the days of environmental science for science sake are long gone, there will be an underground i suspect but it will be virtually unfunded and largely devoid of review .

They are all, irrespective of whether government employed no more than hawkers for their very own bank accounts.

step 1 in funding, ensure that the wording of the application relays some sort of catastrophic event might be likely if not funded.

step 2, covert this understanding as true at all times to protect fully the opportunity for future funding on the same topic or to at least ensure that the department/organization grows through future access through funding and /or legislation.

step 3, because the original funding was released and only possible based on horror/negative expectations, all press results (most often a mandatory condition of funding so the government get to beat their breast that they are spending money, can also be because the minister involved has a pet interest in the area) and the conclusion for publication MUST relay catastrophic etc or at the very least the opportunity of it in the future.

step 4, all future applications can now build on the previous conclusion as it is easier to get funding for it now given the funding already received....no proof necessary, no ethics necessary, the paper will be peer reviewed by others doing the exact same thing in their chosen portion of interest in the field, lovely little Ponzi scheme is created where the mandatory scientific output must convey disaster. It's a scam pure and simple at this level of scientific adventure.

step 5, all scientist and workers involved can buy that new car...after all if they play it well enough the research might get funded for years to come.....fluffing the truth just enough to make legislation being the ultimate in gainful end results.


Pftt! the state of government funded environmental science today is just a joke, a big Ponzi scheme joke on every one us and people want to help them out? better to volunteer at the head office of Scientology.....they in practice are not much worse.

[Matt_Campbell]

The great unwashed have absolutely no idea what environmental science is about today and the marine sciences is at the forefront of it...absolutely.

If the scientists did not have a pointed ideological direction to take the survey/research/experiment/data results then they wouldn't bother, the days of environmental science for science sake are long gone, there will be an underground i suspect but it will be virtually unfunded and largely devoid of review .

They are all, irrespective of whether government employed no more than hawkers for their very own bank accounts.

step 1 in funding, ensure that the wording of the application relays some sort of catastrophic event might be likely if not funded.

step 2, covert this understanding as true at all times to protect fully the opportunity for future funding on the same topic or to at least ensure that the department/organization grows through future access through funding and /or legislation.

step 3, because the original funding was released and only possible based on horror/negative expectations, all press results (most often a mandatory condition of funding so the government get to beat their breast that they are spending money, can also be because the minister involved has a pet interest in the area) and the conclusion for publication MUST relay catastrophic etc or at the very least the opportunity of it in the future.

step 4, all future applications can now build on the previous conclusion as it is easier to get funding for it now given the funding already received....no proof necessary, no ethics necessary, the paper will be peer reviewed by others doing the exact same thing in their chosen portion of interest in the field, lovely little Ponzi scheme is created where the mandatory scientific output must convey disaster. It's a scam pure and simple at this level of scientific adventure.

step 5, all scientist and workers involved can buy that new car...after all if they play it well enough the research might get funded for years to come.....fluffing the truth just enough to make legislation being the ultimate in gainful end results.


Pftt! the state of government funded environmental science today is just a joke, a big Ponzi scheme joke on every one us and people want to help them out? better to volunteer at the head office of Scientology.....they in practice are not much worse.

A well thought-out piece FNQ. Thanks for enlightening us on this issue. Is there a blog, podcast or vodcast I can subscribe to in order to hear more of your views?

[Gazza]

Yes m8...website AUSFISH , he's "famous" there ;D

[Gazza]

Whether or not they have an agenda, I think that we should report our catches accurately when asked. provide as much information as you wish, but it would be my suggestion that you be vague about location (but still truthful) Insterad of saying "I caught these snaps at mud island", just say Moreton bay, if they ask for more details, just say all over the place, i did a lot of travelling today.

Everyone on here has had a whinge and a bitch about dodgy science and data, well now they are trying to get the data, and people are still whinging. No data, no results, just opinion, good data, and results can be skewed, but at least there is data to back it up and run other models etc, AT LEAST THERE WILL BE DATA to take reference from.Unintentional BS imo Scott , Zero/zip/ziltch biomass "data" can be deduced from a RecFisho "survey" ,regardless of "participation"
jmo..&..no skin lost m8 ;) ,respect your pov

p.s. ANYBODY...correct me , if i'm wrong

[FNQCairns]

A well thought-out piece FNQ. Thanks for enlightening us on this issue. Is there a blog, podcast or vodcast I can subscribe to in order to hear more of your views?

Whats wrong with it Matt? it was that way when I used to be involved in fishery's research applications, used to turn my stomach at times, it turned too far to the sad side and is the major reason I have no income from fishery' conservation research anymore and never will...the dis-credible behavior (scientific) simply become far to unreal in this arena.

I actually moved from commercial fishery's research over to the conservation side as a competitive placement, today unless I was radical green and card carrying and outspoken on it to the correct individuals i doubt I would have any competitive chance these days.......the types employed today are a far far cry from the qualities and ethics of scientists 20-30 years ago, these individuals are all mostly gone now.

How low can we go?? fishery's/marine conservation research is skin cream or ab-sizer quality research when compared to medical or private commercial research..no comparison.

[NAGG]

Bugger the conspiracy theories & that a LNP government will fix all with proper scientific data ...... what a load of tripe. The minister will rely on the department to advise him - not him advising fisheries. ... that is the reality. Talk to anyone at a senior level in a government department & you will be told - business as usual unless some pollie says they are going to make cuts or unless something has created some unwanted media attention.

I still want to know how you come up with accurate scientific data in an open environment like the ocean , bays & estuaries ....... at best you can only get a snap shot (a small one) .....
The Marlin tagging program has been one of the most successful means of obtaining scientific data - It's also one of the easiest to manage & monitor - yet its been going for something like 40 years ........ Is this the type of program that we need for other rec species?
Ramp surveys are invaluable - but the data collected needs to be accurate ..... therefore those doing the surveys should have the authority to inspect catches - not only to check the legality of the catch but obtain real data .......
Many years ago , I took part in a kingfish survey in NSW - legal sized fish were becoming scarce ......... this data was used in part to ban the use of floating kingfish traps - 8-) the fishery is now recovering nicely
So benefits can be gained by giving real information rather than misleading rubbish.

Chris

[trymyluck]

Bugger the conspiracy theories & that a LNP government will fix all with proper scientific data ...... what a load of tripe. The minister will rely on the department to advise him - not him advising fisheries. ... that is the reality. Talk to anyone at a senior level in a government department & you will be told - business as usual unless some pollie says they are going to make cuts or unless something has created some unwanted media attention.

I still want to know how you come up with accurate scientific data in an open environment like the ocean , bays & estuaries ....... at best you can only get a snap shot (a small one) .....
The Marlin tagging program has been one of the most successful means of obtaining scientific data - It's also one of the easiest to manage & monitor - yet its been going for something like 40 years ........ Is this the type of program that we need for other rec species?
Ramp surveys are invaluable - but the data collected needs to be accurate ..... therefore those doing the surveys should have the authority to inspect catches - not only to check the legality of the catch but obtain real data .......
Many years ago , I took part in a kingfish survey in NSW - legal sized fish were becoming scarce ......... this data was used in part to ban the use of floating kingfish traps - 8-) the fishery is now recovering nicely
So benefits can be gained by giving real information rather than misleading rubbish.

Chris

Bullshit.......... Forget about the past, in todays political climate where said minister's political future may depend on green preferences then the info gained may end up being used to justify the means of buying those preferences. In the past I believe that the motive for fisheries management was for that very reason. Now its just a political football.

Mark

[NAGG]

Bullshit.......... Forget about the past, in todays political climate where said minister's political future may depend on green preferences then the info gained may end up being used to justify the means of buying those preferences. In the past I believe that the motive for fisheries management was for that very reason. Now its just a political football.

Mark

Mark if you are right ....... then we just have to look to across the border & see what changes are made to NSW fisheries - but more importantly their focus / research....... You can see what they have been up to on their website. I'll be keen to see just what Barry O'Farrel will do to improve the department - if anything.

Chris

PS ...... just so this can be documented here on Ausfish - Here is the new NSW Governments fishing policy


https://nsw.nationals.org.au/images/stories/site_design/news_banner.jpg



 NSW Liberals & Nationals recreational fishing policy: restoring the balance Written by Hon Duncan Gay MLC Tuesday, 22 February 2011 17:51 https://nsw.nationals.org.au/images/stories/MP_photos/wpThumbnails/Gay.jpgThe NSW Liberals & Nationals Marine Parks policy, 'Restoring the Balance' outlines our positive, practical plans based on independent, scientific evidence to give local communities a proper say in decisions that affect their livelihood and lifestyle, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries Duncan Gay said today.

Mr Gay's comments were made today at Westport Park Boat Ramp, Park Street, Port Macquarie with the Nationals candidate for the Port Macquarie Electorate Leslie Williams. "The NSW Liberals & Nationals policy, 'Restoring the Balance', finds the right balance between allowing fishermen appropriate access to fishing spots and protecting the marine environment. "Our Policy, 'Restoring the Balance', will;


Not abolish any of the existing six marine parks and continue our moratorium on the creation of new marine parks and fishing closures, pending the outcome of our independent scientific audit.
Immediately commission an independent scientific audit of the effectiveness of existing zoning arrangements in meeting domestic and international commitments to the conservation of marine biodiversity.
A separate audit to examine which lead agency (Fisheries or the Department of Environment and Climate Change) is more appropriate to manage Marine Parks.
Trial appropriate recreational fishing techniques in marine parks under review.
Expand the current Habitat Protection Zones within marine parks subject to the results of the scientific independent audit
Local Community Social and Economic Impact Statements included in the audit
Commit to removing pressure on our fish stocks and marine environment through a $16 million, 4-year commitment for a commercial fisherman buyout policy.
Audit the current management of NSW Fishing Trust funds and the process by which trust funds are allocated
Create a new Joint Recreational and Commercial Fishing Advisory
Committee including stakeholders from the fishing industries
Improve the awareness of anglers of zoning arrangements so fines are not handed out to unsuspecting people drifting into restricted areas.
Improve the current system of compliance
"Fishermen in NSW have long suffered under NSW Labor's failed marine parks policy which was designed to achieve a political outcome rather than an environmental evidence-based outcome," said Mr Gay.

"The NSW Liberals & Nationals do not believe that Labor's approach of locking communities out of their waterways is the answer to protecting our marine environments.

"Marine parks as operated by the Keneally Labor Government concentrate solely on restricting fishing rather than addressing pollution, introduced species and diseases, some agricultural substances and inappropriate coastal development.

"Fishing is a hugely popular past time and an important part of the Australian way of life, NSW issues almost half a million recreational fishing licences each year.

"Unlike NSW Labor, who for 16 years has sold out fishermen in the name of Greens preferences, the NSW Liberals & Nationals policy finds the right balance between allowing recreational fishing and protecting our marine environments."

Nationals Candidate for Port Macquarie Leslie Williams said that, unlike the Keneally Labor Government, the NSW Liberals & Nationals understood that good environmental policy was that which found common ground between stakeholders and listening to community concerns.

"We firmly believe Marine Parks do not have to be established at the cost of recreational fishing; and conservation campaigners do not have to be pitted against fishing families," she said.

[Beast1965]

"Fishing the Secret Society". Is this what we are really about, do we have to lie about what we catch and take home or do you have illegal fish on board and need to hide the fact. We whinge about what the government is doing with respect to bans and green zones, but you aide them by saying you caught nothing. Wouldn't this infer that there are less fish out there and that they may need to extend tha bans or increase the green zones. Just because you are asked a question it doesn't mean the world is ending. These departments make the decisions based on information that is sourced by researchers (us) as we are out there fishing in different areas that they would not have the resources to complete so we are the best source of information. So if we mislead or lie to them then we are only hurting ourselves. The otherside is that if Fisheries think we are lying then we may come back to the ramps with other departments that possess search and seizure powers, do we really want that?

Why not be honest as lying gets you no where and in the end you may get caught out and lose the lot including your boat, car and anything else deemed to be used in the commiting of the offence.

I do not believe in lying and I only take legal fish so I have nothing to hide.

If I was Fisheries Minister I would be out every weekend checking fish stocks myself!

[Beast1965]

If I was Fisheries Minister I would be out every weekend checking fish stocks!

[PinHead]

2 sides to this I guess.

I have been one complaining about the rubbery figures used for the recent snapper closures. I am all in favour of rec anglers providing information to Fisheries so that at least there may be something tangible to start basing any future closures or bag/size limits on. There needs to be a "starting point" on the fish stocks and I guess we have a role to play in this.

The flip side is: the data collected has to be transparent for all to access...including us. Not just kept hidden away for Gvot agencies to use at their whim.

[Gazza]

"Fishing the Secret Society". Is this what we are really about, do we have to lie about what we catch and take home or do you have illegal fish on board and need to hide the fact. We whinge about what the government is doing with respect to bans and green zones, but you aide them by saying you caught nothing. Wouldn't this infer that there are less fish out there and that they may need to extend tha bans or increase the green zones. Just because you are asked a question it doesn't mean the world is ending. These departments make the decisions based on information that is sourced by researchers (us) as we are out there fishing in different areas that they would not have the resources to complete so we are the best source of information. So if we mislead or lie to them then we are only hurting ourselves. The otherside is that if Fisheries think we are lying then we may come back to the ramps with other departments that possess search and seizure powers, do we really want that?

Why not be honest as lying gets you no where and in the end you may get caught out and lose the lot including your boat, car and anything else deemed to be used in the commiting of the offence.

I do not believe in lying and I only take legal fish so I have nothing to hide.

If I was Fisheries Minister I would be out every weekend checking fish stocks myself!Well beast, WHY do you assume, just because I do not care to be interrogated at a ramp, I am doing something illegal:speechless:
Seems to me ,you have got caught up in the hyped up way the "NO" was phrased ......
"No we don't trust them with the information"

I'm happy with present 5/35 limits , IF somebody wants to search my boat and esky , they can.

If you want to get information that is useless , because it can be interpreted 2 ways with same info.
X fish caught , we're catching too many, so we're in trouble with the biomass.
X fish caught , we're not catching enough , so we're in trouble with the biomass.

Can't wait for the carpark shopping surveys to start.... ::)
Which shops did you go to ,what did you buy , which shop you going to now , how many items ,how much did you spend....

oh no, I just told them to get stuffed, I MUST have stolen property...call the cops :policeman:

[Beast1965]

Gazza thanks for your comments but I believe they are taken out of context. What I am trying to get across is if we have nothing to hide then why shouldn't we open with fisheries. Just because people think their comments will be used to increase bans or green zones then they be very wrong this might prove that there are plenty of fish out there and these bans or green zones be reduced. We don't have to be pesimistic and think the worst if we are asked a question. At the moment we have a lot of restrictions placed on us by the government and we are concerned about how it effects us but maybe this information may benefit us. Once again Gazza I appreciate your feedback, but I am optimistic that these surveys will help us in the long run and open new opportunities for the recos.

[Gazza]

Voluntary "anything" is fine by me beast , now I just need to get over the BS Biomass data , that the Fisheries dudes tried to use to have us choose to pay $90/70

5/35 is fine by me , part-Feb and March(only)if needed at all is also fine , to gently reduce tonnage taken.

[gunna]

Seems to me ,you have got caught up in the hyped up way the "NO" was phrased ......
"No we don't trust them with the information"



You know I struggled a bit to coin an adequate phrase for what I thought people were thinking. I was not real comfortable with that option - but the results have been interesting. Perhaps I should have said - "No - and why?? "

Peter

[Beast1965]

Gazza I agree with you 5/35 is great, but to ensure that we have some sort of equity and to ensure that the correct data is being given to those in power and for them to make informed decisions not those based on speculation is paramount. As I have said on other post on this website I am standing at the next state election as an independent and I want any decision I make based on real information and not what is assumed. So in order for me to help you I want the truth and not what some scientist puports to be the truth. I love my fishing and I love my community but I want to do right by them both. If I don't get the information from all sides then the decision I make may not be the right one because people have witheld vital information in these surveys.

[finga]

I honestly don't know what I'd do.
I'm caught between giving the information that is very much needed so an informed decision may be made.
But in giving that information will I bite myself in the posteria??
I'm buggered if I know really but if I don't give the information then there could be another scape goat to give the angler a bad name.

So in short....I'll be buggered if I do (maybe) and I'll be buggered if I don't (possibly).

[Gazza]

Gazza I agree with you 5/35 is great, but to ensure that we have some sort of equity and to ensure that the correct data is being given to those in power and for them to make informed decisions not those based on speculation is paramount. As I have said on other post on this website I am standing at the next state election as an independent and I want any decision I make based on real information and not what is assumed. So in order for me to help you I want the truth and not what some scientist puports to be the truth. I love my fishing and I love my community but I want to do right by them both. If I don't get the information from all sides then the decision I make may not be the right one because people have witheld vital information in these surveys.Beast..thankyou for your also welcome pov
..but please DON'T hang your hat on , a computer "model" BS.....or YOU will be replaced by a computer :laola:

p.s. beast i do respect your pov ,just don't entirely agree

[johncar]

It seems pretty simple to me.
If everyone tells them that they are bagging out every time, the message should be that there are good fish stocks, no need to panic.

I we tell them we caught nothing, they have every reason to be concerned and start looking at closures and bans.

I don't seem to have any problem catching my 5 x Snapper in a short time so I find it hard to see any reason for this panicing but I can still see a problem with the bycatch kill and habitat damage by prawn trawlers and other netting activities. Young snapper and others have definitely declined in Moreton Bay which needs to be seriously addressed by Fisheries and the Commercial Ops.
Rec fishers all need to be aware of this and keep pressure on it.

[finga]

I honestly don't know what I'd do.
I'm caught between giving the information that is very much needed so an informed decision may be made.
I've had a think about this and in the end I would give the information asked.
Why?? I'm just a nice, courteous yobbo who finds it hard to tell a porky pie.

[Lovey80]

It seems pretty simple to me.
If everyone tells them that they are bagging out every time, the message should be that there are good fish stocks, no need to panic.

I we tell them we caught nothing, they have every reason to be concerned and start looking at closures and bans.

I don't seem to have any problem catching my 5 x Snapper in a short time so I find it hard to see any reason for this panicing but I can still see a problem with the bycatch kill and habitat damage by prawn trawlers and other netting activities. Young snapper and others have definitely declined in Moreton Bay which needs to be seriously addressed by Fisheries and the Commercial Ops.
Rec fishers all need to be aware of this and keep pressure on it.

You would think this would be the case John but of course it can be a double edged sword.

For example, if these large catches are extrapolated like they are then it simply shows that our "take" is too large. Remember that this whole Snapper issue is because the Snapper "Biomass" was deemed to be too low compared to the "Virgin" Biomass and thats why we are in the shit. Going back a few years and SEQ Snapper were deemed well managed and they still say that Snapper is not in danger of collapse. Remember the things like an average 4% increase in boats sales over a certain size meant an automatic extrapolation of the "data" they did have to ensure that the "Rec Take" was increasing by 4% or similar..... Just because the catches are good doesn't mean that fisheries wont want to put further restrictions on it.

I say NO don't give them the data unless it is a wide scale comprehensive data set such as a compulsory catch card. If the "data' is wide scale and comprehensive it leaves a mathematician working for Fisheries with far less freedom of movement when they want to make BS assumptions on the info they don't have.

So for me I will simply say " Yep I caught some fish and no you cant measure them".

[Jim Groves]

If I might comment on some of the general comments in this thread.

It is encouraging to see that the majority of you would take part in our boat ramps surveys. Having read through the various postings, it seems that we all share a common desire, even those that voted 'no'. We all want healthy fish stocks so that our future generations can continue to fish recreationally and enjoy all the benefits it provides. Good decisions need good data and the best way to reduce uncertainty in any of our fisheries information is to get honest and accurate data from fishers.

Fortunately the majority of fishers at ramps do answer our questions and allow us to measure their catch. It is a similar picture in our other types of recreational fishing surveys. This is in part because we do try to design our surveys to minimise concerns fishers may have. The overwhelming majority of fishers do help us out and we need this ongoing support to manage our fisheries sustainably.

Jim Groves
MD
Fisheries Queensland

[Jono_SS]

You would think this would be the case John but of course it can be a double edged sword.

For example, if these large catches are extrapolated like they are then it simply shows that our "take" is too large. Remember that this whole Snapper issue is because the Snapper "Biomass" was deemed to be too low compared to the "Virgin" Biomass and thats why we are in the shit. Going back a few years and SEQ Snapper were deemed well managed and they still say that Snapper is not in danger of collapse. Remember the things like an average 4% increase in boats sales over a certain size meant an automatic extrapolation of the "data" they did have to ensure that the "Rec Take" was increasing by 4% or similar..... Just because the catches are good doesn't mean that fisheries wont want to put further restrictions on it.

I say NO don't give them the data unless it is a wide scale comprehensive data set such as a compulsory catch card. If the "data' is wide scale and comprehensive it leaves a mathematician working for Fisheries with far less freedom of movement when they want to make BS assumptions on the info they don't have.

So for me I will simply say " Yep I caught some fish and no you cant measure them".

It's not just about how many fish get caught. It's equally important how big/small and old/young the fish that get caught are, which collectively adds up to estimating the relative abundance of different age groups in the population each year (age structure). Like all of the datasets, a time series of this sort of information is valuable for monitoring the stocks - a lot more valuable than a single year on it's own.

If you say "Yes i caught some fish but you can't measure them", then nothing is recorded by the guys who are there to measure fish.

Jonathan.

[gunna]

If I might comment on some of the general comments in this thread.

It is encouraging to see that the majority of you would take part in our boat ramps surveys. Having read through the various postings, it seems that we all share a common desire, even those that voted 'no'. We all want healthy fish stocks so that our future generations can continue to fish recreationally and enjoy all the benefits it provides. Good decisions need good data and the best way to reduce uncertainty in any of our fisheries information is to get honest and accurate data from fishers.

Fortunately the majority of fishers at ramps do answer our questions and allow us to measure their catch. It is a similar picture in our other types of recreational fishing surveys. This is in part because we do try to design our surveys to minimise concerns fishers may have. The overwhelming majority of fishers do help us out and we need this ongoing support to manage our fisheries sustainably.

Jim Groves
MD
Fisheries Queensland


Thanks for that Jim. I must say that the one thing that concerned me on the day was when the guy asked how many times a year I fished. Answer was 20 - 40. I had 11 fish. I would hate to think you guys then calculate that I bring in 11 fish each of the 20 - 40 trips. Thats my worry. You need to factor in the zero fish trips as well.

[STUIE63]

If I might comment on some of the general comments in this thread.

It is encouraging to see that the majority of you would take part in our boat ramps surveys. Having read through the various postings, it seems that we all share a common desire, even those that voted 'no'. We all want healthy fish stocks so that our future generations can continue to fish recreationally and enjoy all the benefits it provides. Good decisions need good data and the best way to reduce uncertainty in any of our fisheries information is to get honest and accurate data from fishers.

Fortunately the majority of fishers at ramps do answer our questions and allow us to measure their catch. It is a similar picture in our other types of recreational fishing surveys. This is in part because we do try to design our surveys to minimise concerns fishers may have. The overwhelming majority of fishers do help us out and we need this ongoing support to manage our fisheries sustainably.

Jim Groves
MD
Fisheries Queensland


Rather than congratulating yourself on 63% of the replies saying they would respond to a survey , I would have thought that 37% not replying or trusting should be a worrying number . to me it seems your dept have an image and trust problem Jim
Stuie

[Lovey80]

It's not just about how many fish get caught. It's equally important how big/small and old/young the fish that get caught are, which collectively adds up to estimating the relative abundance of different age groups in the population each year (age structure). Like all of the datasets, a time series of this sort of information is valuable for monitoring the stocks - a lot more valuable than a single year on it's own.

If you say "Yes i caught some fish but you can't measure them", then nothing is recorded by the guys who are there to measure fish.

Jonathan.

John, take that into context of what I had said above. I totally agree with what you are saying. I just am not happy how they are taking this TINY amount of information and extrapolating it out with most likely huge errors in it. I want that time series data sets but I want it on huge amounts of data not piddly little boat ramp surveys and phone surveys........ Get a catch card, make it mandatory so these errors can be taken out of it!

[red rock cod]

no. re the last snapper closure. have been fishing redcliffe for 30 years. during the last 3 years i have seen more baby squire caught every year