New bag and size limits as of today

[bluefin59]

https://bit.ly/2IOorg8
Go to qld fisheries site for new bag and size limits as of today ,oh and closed fishing for snapper July and August.

[Moonlighter]

https://bit.ly/2IOorg8
Go to qld fisheries site for new bag and size limits as of today ,oh and closed fishing for snapper July and August.

Also closed for Pearlies....

[BigE]

Certainly looks like state labour didn't learn much from the Fed labour election lessons

sharpen the pencils

BigE

[scottar]

Yep. Yet again, the token effort of public consultation makes an absolute mokery of the process. They already knew what they wanted and were going to implement it anyway.

[Bremic]

Does anyone know what the maximum allowable (commercial) take for snapper and pearlies was prior to these changes?

[bluefin59]

Certainly looks like state labour didn't learn much from the Fed labour election lessons

sharpen the pencils

BigE

Iv been on the road up here in North and central Queensland since February and labor have no chance ,they are way on the nose up here let me tell you . This will just add to their woes the gooses . Matt

[Aussie123]

Does anyone know what the maximum allowable (commercial) take for snapper and pearlies was prior to these changes?

There was no TAC previously and this change will see a reduction of around 30% in the commercial Snapper and Pearl Perch take from previous years.

[Dignity]

Does anyone know what the maximum allowable (commercial) take for snapper and pearlies was prior to these changes?

There wasn't any.
Oops, didn't see Aussies post. The govt wanted to introduce them back in 2008 but the commercial sector put up all sorts of claims about managing the fisheries themselves. Had to happen eventually.

[BigE]

Iv been on the road up here in North and central Queensland since February and labor have no chance ,they are way on the nose up here let me tell you . This will just add to their woes the gooses . Matt

I'm surprised they didn't make the announcement by poster on the side of a bus !!!!! LOL.... just so out of touch with ordinary workin people.

BigE

[chris69]

Going by the new regs you can take 2 times the per person limit if your in a boat by yourself as i have read it 2 times the limit per boat it doesnt state the number of fishers in the boat ,it should have read no more than 2 times the limit when more than 2 fishers are in a boat the way I see it lol.

[Dirtyfuzz]

Going by the new regs you can take 2 times the per person limit if your in a boat by yourself as i have read it 2 times the limit per boat it doesnt state the number of fishers in the boat ,it should have read no more than 2 times the limit when more than 2 fishers are in a boat the way I see it lol.

The limit per person still applies as I’m aware! solo 4 snapper, 8 persons 8 snapper


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FINICKY]

At the end of the day we aren’t affected too much by the new regs.
We now keep 4 bigger pearlies and only take 1 mate fishing at a time for snapper.
The one month closure has the biggest impact but hopefully giving the snapper and pearlies a month to reproduce during their breeding season should help the population and improve the other 11 months catch rate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Noelm]

Going by the new regs you can take 2 times the per person limit if your in a boat by yourself as i have read it 2 times the limit per boat it doesnt state the number of fishers in the boat ,it should have read no more than 2 times the limit when more than 2 fishers are in a boat the way I see it lol.
I think you will need a good lawyer to win that one, boat limits and person limits are enforced, being on your own doesn't mean you can catch the boat limit, trying to twist words is what gets people into trouble.

[jackson4300]

I think it has been poorly executed, to enforce the new regs on the same day they are released but not having updated material available for everyone including those who don't have internet access is always asking for trouble.
I see they have restricted areas on the Coomera river but are still yet to have any maps showing the restricted areas at all.

As much as I dislike the idea of not being able to fish for snapper for a few weeks and being limited to 8 snapper on the boat, I am hoping this will come out as positive for me as I will be pushed to better target other species which I normally wouldn't spend the time.

The other nuisance is the crab pot tags, I regularly share pots with my father. From what I can see, I will just put multiple tags on each pot for anyone who might use it.

[Watto79]

What are the changes to crab pot tags?!

[shaungonemad]

What are the changes to crab pot tags?!

Last name and address of the person using them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chris69]

I think you will need a good lawyer to win that one, boat limits and person limits are enforced, being on your own doesn't mean you can catch the boat limit, trying to twist words is what gets people into trouble.


Im not twisting words that's what it says .no numbers mentioned its there wording I think they should be clearer in there definitions.

[Volvo]

What is it we do or dont like regarding the new regs from our perspective ?. Would really like to hear.

[BigE]

The point of sustainability at which bag limits will increase, I have no problem with the boffins showing evidence that indicates that there is a need for the resource pressure to be reduced so that the stock is sustainable ,,,,,,But that would also mean that there would be a point at which the stock would be able to sustain an increase in resource utilisation ( an increase in bag limits ) without a balance in the equation then it is just a social engineering exercise to restrict the access to a resource of Joe Average and nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the resource.

BigE



What is it we do or dont like regarding the new regs from our perspective ?. Would really like to hear.

[efc]

I think Australian freshwater bass have gone from 1 per person to 3.
So yes they do change as numbers increase.
It has been pretty good for a long time, look at prawn season, guys filling eskies day after day. Had to change.

[scottar]

What is it we do or dont like regarding the new regs from our perspective ?. Would really like to hear.

From a personal perspective, the boat limit on snapper. With all the supposed doom and gloom they still make up the majority of the offshore catch in SEQ. Now effectively we are forced to make the decision between taking extra mates or a feed for the family when the majority of what gets thrown back will probably won't survive anyway. . I used to have a strict no upgrades policy on my boat. It's a practice I dislike but it will definitely get a rethink now.

[Lovey80]

What is it we do or dont like regarding the new regs from our perspective ?. Would really like to hear.

Everyone from the fisheries scientists involved in the Biomas survey to the minister to be sacked immediately.

"Minister Furner said introducing the changes now meant we would continue to have Queensland fish on the table, protect thousands of jobs in both the commercial and recreational sectors and protect our marine ecosystem and the Great Barrier Reef.
“The Palaszczuk Government has comprehensively consulted over the past two years on these reforms,” Mr Furner said."

What consultation? This is the first I am hearing about it.

[Darren J]

It definitely hurts those lucky enough to have bigger boats that might like to travel further. Three or even more on board to make a trip more “viable” becomes more difficult if your limited to not taking fish for each person on board. I can see what they are trying to stop, say 5 guys jammed in a tinny so they can take a bigger limit (when really only 2 can fish), but there are other instances where it is not fair to those that have larger boats. Example take 2 small boats with 2 guys in each, you can have 16 snapper, but take one big boat (where cost is exponential to size!) with all 4 blokes on board, and you are shut down at 8 fish which is your penalty for being able to fish 4 instead of only 2 on a larger single boat.

Maybe the boat limit should have related to boat size - say every 2m of registered boat length allows 1 x of possession limit. So 4m+ boat up to 8, 6m+ boat up to 12. Or maybe half the registered number of passengers max for any boat sets the number.

Small cabin boat registered for 4, gets 2x limit. Large cat registered for 8, gets 4 x limit. 6m mono registered for 6 gets 3x limit...

That would at least make the circumstances have some logic. Boat limit, when boat size and circumstances varies greatly is a pretty blunt tool for control of quantity taken.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dirtyfuzz]

The point of sustainability at which bag limits will increase, I have no problem with the boffins showing evidence that indicates that there is a need for the resource pressure to be reduced so that the stock is sustainable ,,,,,,But that would also mean that there would be a point at which the stock would be able to sustain an increase in resource utilisation ( an increase in bag limits ) without a balance in the equation then it is just a social engineering exercise to restrict the access to a resource of Joe Average and nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the resource.

BigE

What will happen is the commercial quota will increase, recreational limits will stay the same


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Matthew Campbell]

Everyone from the fisheries scientists involved in the Biomas survey to the minister to be sacked immediately.
Jeez that’s a bit harsh.

[chris69]

After reading someones reply I'm thinking that there will be an Increase in charter applications for those who think they deserve more because there boat is bigger.

[rtp1984]

The boat limit is my beef.

3 blokes fishing off the rocks, can keep 4 fish each.
The same 3 blokes get in a boat, fish the same water, an only keep 8.
Doesnt make sense.

My particular situation, I live within a couple of street of 2 other mates. Each of us has a boat.
When the stars align, we will all jump in one boat and head out. We just alternate boats.
With this limit, we will now take 2 boats, and get a 4th bloke in as crew.

Now potentially 4 extra fish will be taken, extra fuel used, ect, ect.

Overall, won’t really effect me greatly, but certainly won’t reduce the amount of fish taken.

Probably the opposite

cheers
rob

[Lovey80]

Jeez that’s a bit harsh.

Please don’t tell me you were one of the ones involved that decided that based on number of boats sold had a direct correlation to reduction in biomass this time?

[Lovey80]

From a personal perspective, the boat limit on snapper. With all the supposed doom and gloom they still make up the majority of the offshore catch in SEQ. Now effectively we are forced to make the decision between taking extra mates or a feed for the family when the majority of what gets thrown back will probably won't survive anyway. The science is full of holes and the whole thing smells of yet another deal for green preferences. I used to have a strict no upgrades policy on my boat. It's a practice I dislike but it will definitely get a rethink now.

I’m in exactly the same boat as you now. What this says is that for the last 30 years fisheries has had absolutely no clue on what measures are needed to sustain fish stocks. Is this now the 4th or 5th turn at adding restrictions on Snapper?

They didn’t get it right all the other times, at what point do you just lose all confidence in these people to come up with a management plan that doesn’t have a revolving door of doom and gloom predictions.

We were told last time that the Snapper stocks were not at risk of collapse. We added a ridiculous measure-only on recreationals, and here we are a few years later and the stocks have become even worse?

Im now firmly in the camp of people that believe fisheries scientists need to be constantly messing with the system and predicting doom to justify their existence on a tax payer funded gravy train.

The whole department is a joke and any fisheries that board my boat from now on are going to get a gob full from the time they step on until the time they step off.

[Darren J]

After reading someones reply I'm thinking that there will be an Increase in charter applications for those who think they deserve more because there boat is bigger.

Chris, If that someone you are referring is my comment, then you misinterpret the point completely.

A larger boat is not about thinking you deserve more - it is simply expecting the same right to a limit PER PERSON as anyone else. The fact the 4 people are in the same tub, vs say 2 people in 2 smaller tubs really is irrelevant.
Except the new regulation chooses to PENALISE the group of mates that are lucky enough to fish together in the same boat, purely becasue the boat is comfortable to fish more than 2.

Please explain why you think that being able to put a group of people in 1 boat for a trip, vs that same group spread over 2 boats should change the amount of fish each person should be able to take???

If fisheries really wanted further reductions, then just drop it to 3 per person limit, so ALL fishers feel the effect equally, whether in a 3.6m tinny or a 8m moored vessel. Much fairer than signalling out a select group of people for further reductions/disadvantages, inconsistent with the rest.

Last time I looked it was not a crime to own a larger trailer boat. Plenty of Ausfishers have boats that comfortably fish more than 2 offshore.

[Lucky_Phill]

I am sure we all know the data used by fisheries is still the best available... available is the key word.

The Precautionary Principle is again the driving force behind changes. Imagine the outcry if the Snapper fishery collapsed ???????? Who would get the blame.... FQ of course for not being pro-active and yet here we are again hammering them for being pro-active and not re-active.

I have a differing point of view.

Imagine our fishery is a 100 acre paddock ( we'll digress and say we are harvesting cattle ) and 10% of that paddock is cleared for feed, growing, breeding and said harvesting. Obviously that 10 acres will only sustain so much bio-mass and if we eat away at that bio-mass, it will reduce to a point of ???? But we have 90 acres of paddock that the cattle can't feed and breed in. What do we do ? As a farmer we would clear more land.... that is, make available more habitat, for the cattle to do their thing and also allow us to increase the bio-mass of our said " fishery "... farm.

WHY THE F### are we not doing this in our marine environments ?

All we seem to do is lower the bar, time after time.... band-aid approach.:'(

Here is the kicker.......... if Qld Fisheries and their scientists are only given 10 acres to work with.... the result is always going to be POO !

The Federal and State Governments need to act ( 20 years ago really )... NOW. !!!!! Artificial reef deployments need to roll out in big numbers far and wide along our coastline. Increase the available paddock and you will increase the bio-mass... Science 101.......... ><> IMO.

Add to this, a fiscally robust wild stocking program and our Grand kids will be off the " Ice " and into fishing so much, they can't afford drugs or new iphones, or whatever.....buying too much tackle, rods and reels :) and boats , and cars and... holy crap batman, it is massive economical benefit to Queensland and it's fragile fishery.

I would like to see a QF scientist produce a white paper on an Artificial Reef program of mammoth proportions. ><>

cheers LP

[Lovey80]

I am sure we all know the data used by fisheries is still the best available... available is the key word.

The Precautionary Principle is again the driving force behind changes. Imagine the outcry if the Snapper fishery collapsed ???????? Who would get the blame.... FQ of course for not being pro-active and yet here we are again hammering them for being pro-active and not re-active.

I have a differing point of view.

Imagine our fishery is a 100 acre paddock ( we'll digress and say we are harvesting cattle ) and 10% of that paddock is cleared for feed, growing, breeding and said harvesting. Obviously that 10 acres will only sustain so much bio-mass and if we eat away at that bio-mass, it will reduce to a point of ???? But we have 90 acres of paddock that the cattle can't feed and breed in. What do we do ? As a farmer we would clear more land.... that is, make available more habitat, for the cattle to do their thing and also allow us to increase the bio-mass of our said " fishery "... farm.

WHY THE F### are we not doing this in our marine environments ?

All we seem to do is lower the bar, time after time.... band-aid approach.:'(

Here is the kicker.......... if Qld Fisheries and their scientists are only given 10 acres to work with.... the result is always going to be POO !

The Federal and State Governments need to act ( 20 years ago really )... NOW. !!!!! Artificial reef deployments need to roll out in big numbers far and wide along our coastline. Increase the available paddock and you will increase the bio-mass... Science 101.......... ><> IMO.

Add to this, a fiscally robust wild stocking program and our Grand kids will be off the " Ice " and into fishing so much, they can't afford drugs or new iphones, or whatever.....buying too much tackle, rods and reels :) and boats , and cars and... holy crap batman, it is massive economical benefit to Queensland and it's fragile fishery.

I would like to see a QF scientist produce a white paper on an Artificial Reef program of mammoth proportions. ><>

cheers LP

On the artificial reefs, I totally agree with. We have 2 Army Engineer Regiments and a Construction Squadron in QLD alone that could be put to good use in peace time building these things. They already have a significant capability to do this and maintain that capability through training exercises. Lets get some money available to them to cast and deploy reef balls or similar in Moreton bay and close to shore all up the coast. They even have commercial divers imbedded within the Regiments.

On the collapse. They told us the last time this circus went around that the Snapper fishery is not at risk of collapse due to the measures we already have in place (35cm x 5). Then they went and reduced the bag to 4 and only allowed 1 large fish (another moron Fisheries minister that listened to no one). Less than 10 years later the Biomass has reduced further? All based on crap data? They admitted the data was garbage last time. It was one of the strong requests of the recreational sector last time to introduce a mandatory catch card. Here we are 10 years later and as we predicted last time, the models they use GUARANTEE that the data will show a reduction in Biomass the next time this rock show turns up.

It doesn't matter how angry we get now, because NOTHING we say is going to change anything. We knew 10 years ago that we were going to be bent over and screwed perpetually every single time they run their models. Here is a fact that is indisputable. If all Australian's had of boycotted eating and fishing for snapper for the last 10 years. This current assessment would still show that the biomass has declined.

That is how much of a joke Fisheries Queensland has become.

[Lovey80]

Jeez that’s a bit harsh.

Mathew. Can you tell us if anything resembling the below from the previous stock assessment was used to determine the recreational catch and with it the reduction on what you believe is the virgin biomass?

Recreational
landings from the RFISH surveys were extrapolated from existing estimates to 1946
by using the trend in the number of large vessel (> 6 m) registrations from 1986–2002
(obtained from Queensland Department of Transport), which averaged 4% per year
and was linear.

AND

estimates of total Queensland recreational landings (kg) from 1997, 1999 and 2002
(RFISH data, Queensland Department of Primary Industries) and a national survey in
2000 from which we obtained an estimate of recreational snapper landings for
Queensland. The RFISH and national surveys used an angler diary program and
random telephone survey to expand diary catches to the total number of anglers who
fished snapper in Queensland (RFISH 2001).

[chris69]

Don't be too harsh with Mathew lovey80 he might be the guy that cultures and grows out snapper fingerlings to repopulate snapper stock numbers in SEQ.

[TheRealPoMo]

If fisheries really wanted further reductions, then just drop it to 3 per person limit, so ALL fishers feel the effect equally, whether in a 3.6m tinny or a 8m moored vessel.

This^^^^

....and I don't even have a boat anymore so include land based.

Take what you need for the day and leave.


Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Matthew Campbell]

Mathew. Can you tell us if anything resembling the below from the previous stock assessment was used to determine the recreational catch and with it the reduction on what you believe is the virgin biomass?

Recreational
landings from the RFISH surveys were extrapolated from existing estimates to 1946
by using the trend in the number of large vessel (> 6 m) registrations from 1986–2002
(obtained from Queensland Department of Transport), which averaged 4% per year
and was linear.

AND

estimates of total Queensland recreational landings (kg) from 1997, 1999 and 2002
(RFISH data, Queensland Department of Primary Industries) and a national survey in
2000 from which we obtained an estimate of recreational snapper landings for
Queensland. The RFISH and national surveys used an angler diary program and
random telephone survey to expand diary catches to the total number of anglers who
fished snapper in Queensland (RFISH 2001).



Chris
The stock assessment document is here:

http://era.daf.qld.gov.au/id/eprint/6341/1/SnapperStockAssessment2018V3.pdf

[Volvo]

Fish studies , Bag limits ,Area closures for me is kind of described like how our water resourses are today !! , farmers and Towns as well as Cities starting to ration out the stuff yet years ago it was advised we should have back dammed our Country !!:) , you know , kinda like stocking up for hard times ..
We are so close to a recession so WHY NOT!!??? Borrow , create jobs which will create spending and knowing water may well be the knife that kills our Farmers or a cause of heartache in the future for all , why not act upon it ..
We know how much flow off there is come our Summers up north , how hard would it be to detour part of it !!?? or allow extra to be caught and kept in captivety till needed :)..
I know this has nothing to do with Fish regs etc but when people say our Governements arent listening regarding the future whether it be Fish Stocks or water ??, maybe someone needs to listen more closely .
Too old to know any other way of putting it except everything seems too hard for our pollies except votes and there may lay the secret??..

[scottar]

I am sure we all know the data used by fisheries is still the best available... available is the key word.

The Precautionary Principle is again the driving force behind changes. Imagine the outcry if the Snapper fishery collapsed ???????? Who would get the blame.... FQ of course for not being pro-active and yet here we are again hammering them for being pro-active and not re-active.

I have a differing point of view.

Imagine our fishery is a 100 acre paddock ( we'll digress and say we are harvesting cattle ) and 10% of that paddock is cleared for feed, growing, breeding and said harvesting. Obviously that 10 acres will only sustain so much bio-mass and if we eat away at that bio-mass, it will reduce to a point of ???? But we have 90 acres of paddock that the cattle can't feed and breed in. What do we do ? As a farmer we would clear more land.... that is, make available more habitat, for the cattle to do their thing and also allow us to increase the bio-mass of our said " fishery "... farm.

WHY THE F### are we not doing this in our marine environments ?

All we seem to do is lower the bar, time after time.... band-aid approach.:'(

Here is the kicker.......... if Qld Fisheries and their scientists are only given 10 acres to work with.... the result is always going to be POO !

The Federal and State Governments need to act ( 20 years ago really )... NOW. !!!!! Artificial reef deployments need to roll out in big numbers far and wide along our coastline. Increase the available paddock and you will increase the bio-mass... Science 101.......... ><> IMO.

Add to this, a fiscally robust wild stocking program and our Grand kids will be off the " Ice " and into fishing so much, they can't afford drugs or new iphones, or whatever.....buying too much tackle, rods and reels :) and boats , and cars and... holy crap batman, it is massive economical benefit to Queensland and it's fragile fishery.

I would like to see a QF scientist produce a white paper on an Artificial Reef program of mammoth proportions. ><>

cheers LP


I have edited this post as a lot of it's content was based upon information that was incorrect as told to me. Yes there are improvements that could be made to the science but there is a lot more taken into consideration than I ever thought. If anyone has any interest, get in contact with Matthew via email.

[scottar]

So we are told we share the snapper stock on the east coast with NSW - cool - take it at face value. Then the report - which is one of two that FQ reference as their "evidence" of depleted stock lists Qld stock as "depleted" and yet NSW fisheries utilising partly the same data - the same integrated stock assessment is referenced in relation to both states, lists their stock as "sustainable". Something fishy going on there. Pun intended.

https://www.fish.gov.au/report/230-Snapper-2018?fbclid=IwAR1nz9P2qoOq9q3rF6QpkPkIx48CBU3Sq79Q SJINdd1-Und7AK4hBTKpHrA

[Lovey80]

Chris
The stock assessment document is here:

http://era.daf.qld.gov.au/id/eprint/6341/1/SnapperStockAssessment2018V3.pdf

So that’s a yes.

Recreational effort
For population modelling, prediction of recreational harvest or fishing effort for non-survey years was required. Based on the suggestion by Dr Francis in the independent review of snapper stock assessment in Campbell et al. (2009), a history of recreational harvests was predicted based on a constructed history of fishing. This involved joining historical information on boat registrations

[Dirtyfuzz]

This^^^^

....and I don't even have a boat anymore so include land based.

Take what you need for the day and leave.


Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

No good if you like to head out wide solo most of the time and prefer a larger boat for safety


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[billfisher]

So we are told we share the snapper stock on the east coast with NSW - cool - take it at face value. Then the report - which is one of two that FQ reference as their "evidence" of depleted stock lists Qld stock as "depleted" and yet NSW fisheries utilising partly the same data - the same integrated stock assessment is referenced in relation to both states, lists their stock as "sustainable". Something fishy going on there. Pun intended.

https://www.fish.gov.au/report/230-Snapper-2018?fbclid=IwAR1nz9P2qoOq9q3rF6QpkPkIx48CBU3Sq79Q SJINdd1-Und7AK4hBTKpHrA

Well it's not too hard to fathom. A lot of the effort has been removed from NSW waters and monitoring of things like catch per effort, size and age structure shows stocks are on the way up. From your link:

Commercial and recreational catch and fishing effort are at historically low levels in New South Wales. Commercial landings during 2016–17 were approximately 170 t, lower than the 10 year average of 245 t, and substantially lower than during the early 1980s when commercial landings approached 1 000 t per year. The number of days reported fish trapping when Snapper were landed has declined from 4 790 in 2009–10 to 3 226 in 2016–17, largely due to management driven reforms to the sector. The recreational harvest of Snapper in New South Wales declined from approximately 250 000 fish in 2000–01 to approximately 185 000 fish during 2013–14, and effort also declined markedly during this period [West et al. 2015). Trends in the size and age compositions in landed catches suggest population rebuilding from around 2008 onwards, with continual increases in the average sizes and ages of fish in commercial landings [Wortmann et al. 2018]. This indicates that the stock in New South Wales waters is increasing under existing levels of harvest. This level of fishing mortality is unlikely to cause the biological stock to become recruitment impaired.
On the basis of the evidence provided above, Snapper in New South Wales is classified as a sustainable stock.

[castlemaine]

I struggle with the current regulations let alone change it with little announcement.
Anyone smell an election date coming up,
Kissing up to the Greens, with this one, and Anastasia Palache visiting North Queensland.

[scottar]

I struggle with the current regulations let alone change it with little announcement.
Anyone smell an election date coming up,
Kissing up to the Greens, with this one, and Anastasia Palache visiting North Queensland.

And her alleged corrupt deputy trying to garnish support by stepping on the toes of insurance companies over unsettled claims - which in itself isn't a bad thing - just the timing smells worse than a pilchard that's been left in the bait tank for a week or two. Funny how shit like this that should have been sorted months ago becomes important to them all of a sudden.

[scottar]

Well it's not too hard to fathom. A lot of the effort has been removed from NSW waters and monitoring of things like catch per effort, size and age structure shows stocks are on the way up. From your link:

Commercial and recreational catch and fishing effort are at historically low levels in New South Wales. Commercial landings during 2016–17 were approximately 170 t, lower than the 10 year average of 245 t, and substantially lower than during the early 1980s when commercial landings approached 1 000 t per year. The number of days reported fish trapping when Snapper were landed has declined from 4 790 in 2009–10 to 3 226 in 2016–17, largely due to management driven reforms to the sector. The recreational harvest of Snapper in New South Wales declined from approximately 250 000 fish in 2000–01 to approximately 185 000 fish during 2013–14, and effort also declined markedly during this period [West et al. 2015). Trends in the size and age compositions in landed catches suggest population rebuilding from around 2008 onwards, with continual increases in the average sizes and ages of fish in commercial landings [Wortmann et al. 2018]. This indicates that the stock in New South Wales waters is increasing under existing levels of harvest. This level of fishing mortality is unlikely to cause the biological stock to become recruitment impaired.
On the basis of the evidence provided above, Snapper in New South Wales is classified as a sustainable stock.

Not what I was trying to convey - How is it that when data sets from two adjoining states utilising the same biomass end up with such vastly different outcomes given the acknowledgement that the line fisheries aren't really understood.


"This high relative harvest in New South Wales, in combination with the limited movement of East Coast Snapper [Harasti et al. 2015, Sumpton et al. 2003], indicates that the indices of relative abundance derived from the New South Wales trap fishery are more likely to represent the New South Wales stock than indices from the relatively small and less well understood line fishing sectors."

"The annual age-structured model partitioned the fishery into four sectors: New South Wales trap; New South Wales commercial line and charter; Queensland commercial line and charter, and, New South Wales and Queensland recreational. Model outputs for all line-fishing sectors estimated biomass to be below 20 per cent. In contrast, model scenarios using standardized New South Wales trap catch rates ranged between 20 per cent and 45 per cent of unfished levels, with the majority of estimates being above 30 per cent. "

So with the NSW and Qld line fishing giving similar numbers, but the extra trap data being the deciding factor that made NSW sustainable - why didn't FQ look further before implementing further restrictions - especially given the "Research Gaps" raised at the working groups? I won't bother reiterating my opinion.

[Lovey80]

Like I said earlier Scott. The models essentially ensure that with increasing boat registrations and recreationals assumed to be taking the lions share based on shit data, extrapolated out then reverse engineered to show numbers relative to 1880 the model was always going to show a decline.

More BS measures just so another bureaucratic nightmare of a government organisation can be seen to be doing something to justify their jobs.

I still ill haven’t seen any of these so called “scholarly” articles claiming they know many fish are caught by the Rec Sector even talk about things like rain fall, drought, fishable days in a calendar year. Most of us can barely manage to get out every 2-3months due to weather and work commitments alone.

[Noelm]

Do you think the rec sector catches the "lions share"? I can't see any other way to estimate rec catches other than guesses, there is no hard data available, attempts have been made to gather info, but we rec fishers are so paranoid that we either lie or don't participate in data gathering.

[billfisher]

Not what I was trying to convey - How is it that when data sets from two adjoining states utilising the same biomass end up with such vastly different outcomes given the acknowledgement that the line fisheries aren't really understood.


"This high relative harvest in New South Wales, in combination with the limited movement of East Coast Snapper [Harasti et al. 2015, Sumpton et al. 2003], indicates that the indices of relative abundance derived from the New South Wales trap fishery are more likely to represent the New South Wales stock than indices from the relatively small and less well understood line fishing sectors."

"The annual age-structured model partitioned the fishery into four sectors: New South Wales trap; New South Wales commercial line and charter; Queensland commercial line and charter, and, New South Wales and Queensland recreational. Model outputs for all line-fishing sectors estimated biomass to be below 20 per cent. In contrast, model scenarios using standardized New South Wales trap catch rates ranged between 20 per cent and 45 per cent of unfished levels, with the majority of estimates being above 30 per cent. "

So with the NSW and Qld line fishing giving similar numbers, but the extra trap data being the deciding factor that made NSW sustainable - why didn't FQ look further before implementing further restrictions - especially given the "Research Gaps" raised at the working groups? I won't bother reiterating my opinion.



My reading is that NSW stocks were declared sustainable because the size, age structure and catch per effort were all positive and therefore showing stocks are on the way up under current management. I thought I made that clear. Ie even if the stock estimates are the same (note with a huge range) the difference is NSW stocks show strong signs of increasing when looking at the catch data.

[bluefin59]

I personally don’t understand how they gather catch rates other than that for pro fishermen because in all the years iv been fishing I personally have only ever had my catch measured and checked ONCE and that was at HERVEY Bay , and I have been out hundreds of times offshore and inshore . I know the charter boats that I use fill in a log every time to collect catch data but out in my own boat only ever once , wouldn’t a better scientific way to work out who is taking what and where to get info from all the major boat ramps for say a period of one year . I guess that would be to simplistic and expensive but gee isn’t it all only a guess other than that . I personally don’t care what they make the take numbers for snapper or pearlies or any other fish for that matter but I just want to make sure I don’t take more than I am allowed . Scientists of every persuasion are prone to make statistics suit the agenda of those they work for , I don’t think it’s worth getting in a tizzy over it unless my ability to go fishing is affected. Matt

[col]

I struggle with the current regulations let alone change it with little announcement.
Anyone smell an election date coming up,
Kissing up to the Greens, with this one, and Anastasia Palache visiting North Queensland.

I agree. The regs are probably needed if we want a good fishery for the next generation but you can be sure this is a promise to the greens for there preferences. Just wish nsw would get serious with their limits.



Sent from my iPhone using Ausfish mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=91595)

[billfisher]

I agree. The regs are probably needed if we want a good fishery for the next generation but you can be sure this is a promise to the greens for there preferences. Just wish nsw would get serious with their limits.



Sent from my iPhone using Ausfish mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=91595)

NSW snapper stocks appear to be increasing under the current reptrictions.

[Noelm]

I posted this once before, but it's kind of relevant, a couple of years ago, there was a heap of volunteers at just about every ramp within miles of me, they were there every weekend over quite a long period, they simply asked how many fishing on the boat, how many of selected species were caught (Snapper, Flathead and a few others, then a mixed category) most fishos told them to p1ss off, but some just gave them the details, how this was used, or how it was intended to be used, I don't know, but, it's probably the only semi reliable data available, whether something like this has been used and some simple formula was added to determine stocks is anyone's guess.

[Noelm]

NSW snapper stocks appear to be increasing under the current reptrictions.
I am pretty sure they are not increasing in my area, but Ocean Flathead certainly are, maybe because of the big Trawler buy outs a few years ago?

[billfisher]

I am pretty sure they are not increasing in my area, but Ocean Flathead certainly are, maybe because of the big Trawler buy outs a few years ago?

What area is that? They seem to be increasing off Sydney. And there have been excellent catches (and large sizes) off Port Stevens.

[Lovey80]

My anecdotal evidence sees that for the Sunshine Coast Snapper numbers are increasing over the last decade.

[Noelm]

What area is that? They seem to be increasing off Sydney. And there have been excellent catches (and large sizes) off Port Stevens.
Not far from there really, around the Illawarra region, I can assure you, it's pretty hard going to get a couple, you might get one legal one here and there, and maybe even snag a 3KG one, but the chances of anywhere near a bag limit are slim at best.

[Matthew Campbell]

If anyone is interested in discussing the data used in the stock assessment or any other aspect, feel free to contact me on matthew.campbell@daf.qld.gov.au. The stock assessment document is located here http://era.daf.qld.gov.au/id/eprint/6341/1/SnapperStockAssessment2018V3.pdf.

[scottar]

My reading is that NSW stocks were declared sustainable because the size, age structure and catch per effort were all positive and therefore showing stocks are on the way up under current management. I thought I made that clear. Ie even if the stock estimates are the same (note with a huge range) the difference is NSW stocks show strong signs of increasing when looking at the catch data.

That's right - but they ignored the line fishing data as it gave vastly different results to the trap data. Much the same way FQ has ignored the fact there was a vast difference by not further questioning their own results given the presence of the NSW trap data. Every line fishing data model showed biomass at under 20% and yet the traps - show up to 45 with the majority above 30. If you purely go off NSW line data, they are more or less in the same boat as us. So given the variance - why hasn't someone gone "ok, lets look into this further - there has to be another underlying reason". Does it mean that if we had commercial trapping and the subsequent data as well, we would have "sustainable" snapper fishing or does it mean that NSW fisheries has cocked up.

At the end of the day, I have no issue with fisheries management based on real world figures sourced correctly. If they don't have rec data - bring in compulsory reporting the same way they did for the pros. Unless they or the pro lobby don't want it I guess because it might well show what has really been going on I suppose. My issue is with using mathematical models that are based on numbers that may be flawed to begin with - NSW fisheries obviously though so in the face of the additional data they had.

Edit. There were 72 different models generated - 3 of which showed the higher biomass which NSW fisheries decided to run with. Take from that what you will. The trap data was taken into consideration with the model generation.

[Noelm]

I think the NSW trap fishery has just about fizzled out, very few operators compared to years ago, and even less commercial linefishing for Snapper taking place, it's a hard figure to guess or scientifically estimate how much rec catches are currently.

[billfisher]

That's right - but they ignored the line fishing data as it gave vastly different results to the trap data. Much the same way FQ has ignored the fact there was a vast difference by not further questioning their own results given the presence of the NSW trap data. Every line fishing data model showed biomass at under 20% and yet the traps - show up to 45 with the majority above 30. If you purely go off NSW line data, they are more or less in the same boat as us. So given the variance - why hasn't someone gone "ok, lets look into this further - there has to be another underlying reason". Does it mean that if we had commercial trapping and the subsequent data as well, we would have "sustainable" snapper fishing or does it mean that NSW fisheries has cocked up.

At the end of the day, I have no issue with fisheries management based on real world figures sourced correctly. If they don't have rec data - bring in compulsory reporting the same way they did for the pros. Unless they or the pro lobby don't want it I guess because it might well show what has really been going on I suppose. My issue is with using mathematical models that are based on numbers that may be flawed to begin with - NSW fisheries obviously though so in the face of the additional data they had.

The size and age structure of the NSW catch is going up, as well as catch per effort. It's a good sign that the snapper no's are increasing under current management.
That's why they are classed as sustainable. They also point out the line fishery is small and less understood so put more weight on the trap data.

Whereas the Qld snapper stocks are regarded as not likely to improve under current management - how this is worked is not clear - your reference just quotes 'modelling'. Presumably they factor in trends, in age, size and catch per effort also. Ie it don't thinks it's all based on an absolute estimate of the stock.

Why don't you ask Mathew Campbell about it?

[scottar]

If anyone is interested in discussing the data used in the stock assessment or any other aspect, feel free to contact me on matthew.campbell@daf.qld.gov.au. The stock assessment document is located here http://era.daf.qld.gov.au/id/eprint/6341/1/SnapperStockAssessment2018V3.pdf.

Some of the graphing and so on in the reports are a bit hard to fully interpret for a layperson Matthew. Given that the recreational data utilised was an estimate - how many of the states fishers were assumed to have caught snapper, how many of the states boats were assumed to have participated in the snapper fishery and how many snapper or kilos of snapper were assumed to have been taken by each fisher?

[scottar]

The size and age structure of the NSW catch is going up, as well as catch per effort. It's a good sign that the snapper no's are increasing under current management.
That's why they are classed as sustainable. They also point out the line fishery is small and less understood so put more weight on the trap data.

Whereas the Qld snapper stocks are regarded as not likely to improve under current management - how this is worked is not clear - your reference just quotes 'modelling'. Presumably they factor in trends, in age, size and catch per effort also. Ie it don't thinks it's all based on an absolute estimate of the stock.

Why don't you ask Mathew Campbell about it?



Just asked Matthew a few questions and he is more than welcome to jump in any time if he has an answer to the points I've raised.

Edit. After talking with Matthew it became evident that some of the information I had been given was incorrect. The reference to such has been deleted.

[Matthew Campbell]

More than happy to discuss these issues in person Scott. What day next week suits you? Any day but Wednesday is ok for me. Look forward to catching up.

[scottar]

More than happy to discuss these issues in person Scott. What day next week suits you? Any day but Wednesday is ok for me. Look forward to catching up.

I'll have to take a raincheck thanks Matthew unless you are available outside hours. Unfortunately my employment contract isn't written to cover paid consultation with fisheries. Rest assured though, next time I'm on annual leave I will look you up if the offer stands.

[Matthew Campbell]

I'll have to take a raincheck thanks Matthew unless you are available outside hours. Unfortunately my employment contract isn't written to cover paid consultation with fisheries. Rest assured though, next time I'm on annual leave I will look you up if the offer stands.
No problem. I can manage Saturday 14 Sep or Sunday 15 Sep? Which would you prefer?

[efc]

Why isn’t this forum a suitable place for discussion?

[scottar]

Lets have a crack at Sunday. I'll send an email for details

[Matthew Campbell]

No worries

[BigE]

I’m in exactly the same boat as you now. What this says is that for the last 30 years fisheries has had absolutely no clue on what measures are needed to sustain fish stocks. Is this now the 4th or 5th turn at adding restrictions on Snapper?

They didn’t get it right all the other times, at what point do you just lose all confidence in these people to come up with a management plan that doesn’t have a revolving door of doom and gloom predictions.

We were told last time that the Snapper stocks were not at risk of collapse. We added a ridiculous measure-only on recreationals, and here we are a few years later and the stocks have become even worse?

Im now firmly in the camp of people that believe fisheries scientists need to be constantly messing with the system and predicting doom to justify their existence on a tax payer funded gravy train.

The whole department is a joke and any fisheries that board my boat from now on are going to get a gob full from the time they step on until the time they step off.

Understand your feeling but the poor old frontline fisheries guy probably had absolutely no input in to these decisions, venting grief at them is a bit like road rage it usually doesn't end well.
Fully understand your feelings mine are similar. I never do keel surveys for the same reasons.

BigE

[BigE]

Just asked Matthew a few questions and he is more than welcome to jump in any time if he has an answer to the points I've raised. From what I have heard from various sources over the last week or so, there is a whole lot of stuff that various individuals have raised with FQ in relation to the accuracy of their estimates that have basically just been shrugged off. Whether this is the result of simply not knowing the answers on FQ's part or whether it doesn't fit into the governments agenda of course is purely up for speculation. Issues I was told were raised were reduction in effort in certain commercial areas as a direct result of shark predation issues being allowed for in catch figures that were utilised. Basically catches were down as pros simply could not fish the way they used to as sharkings had increased to levels that were an issue ( something that pretty much any reef fisherman will tell you anecdotally since sharks were protected to a higher level) - fobbed off when questioned. Another was whether modelling involved any sort of correlation to weather patterns in conjunction with lunar cycles and other environmental factors - something that every fisherman knows can play a major part in catches and could be a possible contributor to reduced numbers. A direct answer of no was the reply to that one. So even if it blew it's ring out for 365 days straight ( for the purpose of making a point), FQ's modelling would still see a "standardised" number of fish caught and a simple reduction in volume for the pro sector. This may be one area where NSW's trap data becomes significant - traps still fish when the weather or current or what ever else isn't conducive to line fishing thus leading to higher catch rates and ultimately a higher biomass calculation.



The age frequency graphs from what I can see don't seem to have changed in any great fashion for a long time and the age frequency was similar to QLD in NSW line fishing yet different in NSW trap - same questions raised - is it then simply a result of the way the fishery is carried out rather than a reflection of the stock as a whole. One interesting point I found is that FQ's own data shows discrepancy in so much that the age frequency for recreational fishing is lower than that of pro fisherman - so where is the stock actually at - they utilised the lower number which could simply mean that the recs who donated fish for sampling were happy with smaller fish - who knows. Their own reports recommendations basically states they need to make a better effort to gain more accurate data from the recreational sector (page 47 of the report Matthew referenced) - guess it was just easier to limit us further or someone really doesn't want the truth to come out.

Hi Scottar
if you do have a go at this start here
"""The point of sustainability at which bag limits will increase, I have no problem with the boffins showing evidence that indicates that there is a need for the resource pressure to be reduced so that the stock is sustainable ,,,,,,But that would also mean that there would be a point at which the stock would be able to sustain an increase in resource utilisation ( an increase in bag limits ) without a balance in the equation then it is just a social engineering exercise to restrict the access to a resource of Joe Average and nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the resource.""""
Any approach that doesn't start with a tipping point is always going to result in a reduction or restriction, I'm not increasing the bag limit is the way to go what I'm saying is without a goal point where limits increase (either in reality or theory ) then your only debating how much to cut and not how to get to sustainability.
I predict any mention of a bio mass turning point benchmark will make the boffin's run ...... no one likes to draw a goal line for the opposing team (you never know they just might get there) better to keep us in an unwinnable battlefield.

BigE

[BigE]

If anyone is interested in discussing the data used in the stock assessment or any other aspect, feel free to contact me on matthew.campbell@daf.qld.gov.au. The stock assessment document is located here http://era.daf.qld.gov.au/id/eprint/6341/1/SnapperStockAssessment2018V3.pdf.

Hi Matthew
Any mention in the assessment of a stock number /level that would trigger an increase or potential increase in bag limits?? Or is it a one way type of assessment with a pre-determined outcome of reduction as the only option?

BigE

[billfisher]

Hi Matthew
Any mention in the assessment of a stock number /level that would trigger an increase or potential increase in bag limits?? Or is it a one way type of assessment with a pre-determined outcome of reduction as the only option?

BigE

Well there are 3 options, more restrictions, keep them the same or relax them. Also you don't seem to have considered that tighter restriction don't necessarily mean a
'social engineering exercise to restrict the access to a resource of Joe Average '. That's because if they work then it won't be hard to reach your bag limit and the average size will be larger. Also you can catch and release as much as you want. The NT barra situation would be a good example.

[Matthew Campbell]

Hi Matthew
Any mention in the assessment of a stock number /level that would trigger an increase or potential increase in bag limits?? Or is it a one way type of assessment with a pre-determined outcome of reduction as the only option?

BigE
The stock assessment document does not explicitly state the level of spawning biomass required before bag limits would be increased. I'm not sure what you mean by "pre-determined outcome"?

[Aussie123]

Just asked Matthew a few questions and he is more than welcome to jump in any time if he has an answer to the points I've raised. From what I have heard from various sources over the last week or so, there is a whole lot of stuff that various individuals have raised with FQ in relation to the accuracy of their estimates that have basically just been shrugged off. Whether this is the result of simply not knowing the answers on FQ's part or whether it doesn't fit into the governments agenda of course is purely up for speculation. Issues I was told were raised were reduction in effort in certain commercial areas as a direct result of shark predation issues being allowed for in catch figures that were utilised. Basically catches were down as pros simply could not fish the way they used to as sharkings had increased to levels that were an issue ( something that pretty much any reef fisherman will tell you anecdotally since sharks were protected to a higher level) - fobbed off when questioned. Another was whether modelling involved any sort of correlation to weather patterns in conjunction with lunar cycles and other environmental factors - something that every fisherman knows can play a major part in catches and could be a possible contributor to reduced numbers. A direct answer of no was the reply to that one. So even if it blew it's ring out for 365 days straight ( for the purpose of making a point), FQ's modelling would still see a "standardised" number of fish caught and a simple reduction in volume for the pro sector. This may be one area where NSW's trap data becomes significant - traps still fish when the weather or current or what ever else isn't conducive to line fishing thus leading to higher catch rates and ultimately a higher biomass calculation.



The age frequency graphs from what I can see don't seem to have changed in any great fashion for a long time and the age frequency was similar to QLD in NSW line fishing yet different in NSW trap - same questions raised - is it then simply a result of the way the fishery is carried out rather than a reflection of the stock as a whole. One interesting point I found is that FQ's own data shows discrepancy in so much that the age frequency for recreational fishing is lower than that of pro fisherman - so where is the stock actually at - they utilised the lower number which could simply mean that the recs who donated fish for sampling were happy with smaller fish - who knows. Their own reports recommendations basically states they need to make a better effort to gain more accurate data from the recreational sector (page 47 of the report Matthew referenced) - guess it was just easier to limit us further or someone really doesn't want the truth to come out.

The age difference between rec and pro caught fish is because the majority of the pros travel vast distances to catch their fish while recs fish inshore mostly. The recs fishing off Brisbane are generally catching and keeping smaller snapper and often just legal sized fish.
I fish with a number of commercial guys and we travel 150km before we even start fishing and the average size of the snapper is far bigger than off Brisbane or any inshore waters. The schools of snapper are also massive as they rarely get fished due to their remote locations.
The same goes for the Pearlies out there, they are mostly large fish and hang in massive schools.
We often comment about how healthy the fish stocks are but unfortunately fisheries only do their rec surveys in areas that have been flogged for decades, especially off highly populated areas like Brisbane.
There are some amazing populations of fish out there, especially when you see shows of fish the size of a house but they are just not in the range of rec anglers to reach.

The NSW trap industry has always targeted plate sized snapper which is why statistics show a smaller average size of fish compared to the recs.
Nozzle sizes on the traps are kept at a smaller size to keep sharks and wobbies ect out of them and any large snapper need to force their way in through the nozzle if they want to get in to the trap so they do not see a lot of large fish overall.
Market price for large snapper has always been at the lower end compared to plate sized snapper as the bulk of buyers want the smaller fish. This is why the import of small snapper from NZ sees huge numbers of just legal NZ snapper hitting our shores every week.

[rayken1938]

Would not the increase in bag limits of bass indicate it is a two way street?
Strangely enough on some other forums there is opposition to the increase .
In my opinion one of the reasons that whilst catch numbers may not have declined whilst the stock numbers has declined is the increasing sophistication of electronics.
Gps navigation versus lining up a tip of a hill with freds windmill for locations.
Able to see structure on sounders and mark it in gps and then automatically go direct to the location and sit on it.
None of this was available 40 years ago so now we now have the ability to easily locate and target the remaining fish.
Cheers
Ray

[tug_tellum]

Do they ever decide that there is enough of a particular species and it will be ok to go catch them again.
Example --- when will it be acceptable to catch whales again. I dont think that they are highly endangered anymore ,are they?When will people be allowed to catch and eat whales again? It must be getting close soon,surely.
tug_tellum

[Lovey80]

That's right - but they ignored the line fishing data as it gave vastly different results to the trap data. Much the same way FQ has ignored the fact there was a vast difference by not further questioning their own results given the presence of the NSW trap data. Every line fishing data model showed biomass at under 20% and yet the traps - show up to 45 with the majority above 30. If you purely go off NSW line data, they are more or less in the same boat as us. So given the variance - why hasn't someone gone "ok, lets look into this further - there has to be another underlying reason". Does it mean that if we had commercial trapping and the subsequent data as well, we would have "sustainable" snapper fishing or does it mean that NSW fisheries has cocked up.

At the end of the day, I have no issue with fisheries management based on real world figures sourced correctly. If they don't have rec data - bring in compulsory reporting the same way they did for the pros. Unless they or the pro lobby don't want it I guess because it might well show what has really been going on I suppose. My issue is with using mathematical models that are based on numbers that may be flawed to begin with - NSW fisheries obviously though so in the face of the additional data they had.

The model used last time was replicated this time but with just a few new data inputs. Last time the models were hammered by all except the Gold Coast charter mob who were pushing for the review. When Fisheries saw that their models for commercial catches showed that the Snapper fishery was stable they quickly declared that data as “hyper stable” and used a different model to get the desired outcome.

The move to start trying to predict the biomass relative to an 1880 virgin biomass is the problem. It’s a problem because they have not even the faintest idea what the current or virgin biomass is. They have not even the faintest idea of what the recreational catch is each year. They don’t even bother trying to work out how many fishable days are in a calendar year. They don’t even bother trying to work out how climate cycles effect recruitment numbers. In reality they don’t care.

Here is is a fact that one of the authors, Mathew will not dispute. If since the last biomass assessment there were zero fishable days, the model they use would still show a decline in biomass. That is an extreme example but it highlights the seriously crap modelling they are using to restrict all of our past times.

The single biggest sticking point for Recs the last time this rock show rolled around was the fact that we all knew and FQ admitted that the data for Rec catches was absolute bumpkin. We asked for catch cards to be implemented so we knew exactly what the data was. It was put into the too hard basket by an incompetent fisheries minister and probably on advise by FQ. Yet that data is by far the single biggest element of the models that try to reverse engineer a figure of the original virgin biomass. It’s all worked backwards.



The age difference between rec and pro caught fish is because the majority of the pros travel vast distances to catch their fish while recs fish inshore mostly. The recs fishing off Brisbane are generally catching and keeping smaller snapper and often just legal sized fish.
I fish with a number of commercial guys and we travel 150km before we even start fishing and the average size of the snapper is far bigger than off Brisbane or any inshore waters. The schools of snapper are also massive as they rarely get fished due to their remote locations.
The same goes for the Pearlies out there, they are mostly large fish and hang in massive schools.
We often comment about how healthy the fish stocks are but unfortunately fisheries only do their rec surveys in areas that have been flogged for decades, especially off highly populated areas like Brisbane.
There are some amazing populations of fish out there, especially when you see shows of fish the size of a house but they are just not in the range of rec anglers to reach.


This is a very important fact that FQ also ignores. Or should I say dismisses. Sure Moreton bay and Gold Coast fishers, both Rec and charter are likely to show a significantly stressed Snapper population. Yet that data, as poor as it is, is given huge significance in the modelling. Sure, the Gold Coast charter data is probably solid. But as I pointed out 7 years ago, even to Mathew directly, there are plenty of reasons to consider those stocks as hyper depleted when considering the fishery as a whole. In the years leading up to that last assessment there was countless accounts of pissed off Recs complaining about GC charter operators doing SFA to put them on the fish and worrying more about fuel burn than willingness to put punters on fish. There was accounts of the close reefs silting up and becoming up fishable.

I doubt anyone would argue that Moreton and the GC has issues with it being so heavily targeted. But I don’t see Mathew and the other authors recommending area specific mitigation. Again, too hard basket. Not only are they wilfully not attempting to suggest it, but they are wilfully using the data for these areas to suggest it is the same across the whole fishery. As you have clearly pointed out, this is not the case. They know this!

[Lovey80]

That's right - but they ignored the line fishing data as it gave vastly different results to the trap data. Much the same way FQ has ignored the fact there was a vast difference by not further questioning their own results given the presence of the NSW trap data. Every line fishing data model showed biomass at under 20% and yet the traps - show up to 45 with the majority above 30. If you purely go off NSW line data, they are more or less in the same boat as us. So given the variance - why hasn't someone gone "ok, lets look into this further - there has to be another underlying reason". Does it mean that if we had commercial trapping and the subsequent data as well, we would have "sustainable" snapper fishing or does it mean that NSW fisheries has cocked up.

At the end of the day, I have no issue with fisheries management based on real world figures sourced correctly. If they don't have rec data - bring in compulsory reporting the same way they did for the pros. Unless they or the pro lobby don't want it I guess because it might well show what has really been going on I suppose. My issue is with using mathematical models that are based on numbers that may be flawed to begin with - NSW fisheries obviously though so in the face of the additional data they had.


Understand your feeling but the poor old frontline fisheries guy probably had absolutely no input in to these decisions, venting grief at them is a bit like road rage it usually doesn't end well.
Fully understand your feelings mine are similar. I never do keel surveys for the same reasons.

BigE

Until the ###### mathematicians that try to tell me what the fishery is doing using shit data start boarding my boat so I can give them a gob full the “Poor Old Front Line Fisheries Guy” will have to pass on my sentiments.


35cm min
4 per person with no more than 1 over 70cm / 8 per boat with no more than 2 over 70cm (with 2 or more people on board)

So essentially the next time I’m on the banks or the northern hards the two boats next to me, one a commercial the other a charter operator with 25 punters on board can have over 100 fish on board but me with my 3 mates can only have a total of 8? With a total of 2 over 70? What a load of shit.

I guarantee that that every time I go out from now on that there will be 2 fish over 70cm and 6 between 65 and 69cm before I come home.

[Lovey80]

Would not the increase in bag limits of bass indicate it is a two way street?
Strangely enough on some other forums there is opposition to the increase .
In my opinion one of the reasons that whilst catch numbers may not have declined whilst the stock numbers has declined is the increasing sophistication of electronics.
Gps navigation versus lining up a tip of a hill with freds windmill for locations.
Able to see structure on sounders and mark it in gps and then automatically go direct to the location and sit on it.
None of this was available 40 years ago so now we now have the ability to easily locate and target the remaining fish.
Cheers
Ray

Thats a very valid and accurate point. It’s also one of the main reasons FQ gets to ignore data that shows stocks are stable and use different math models to show otherwise.

[Noelm]

Jet as a side note, a couple of days ago two artificial reefs where installed near me, I saw the boat working out there and wondered what it was doing, there was nothing in the paper, no gossip around the ramp, seems like it was a secret squirrel operation. I did end up googling something about it, you would think there would be a big deal made about it, telling us how fabulous everything is going, the article I found said it was after considerable public discussion, I don't know who they discussed it with.

[BigE]

The stock assessment document does not explicitly state the level of spawning biomass required before bag limits would be increased. I'm not sure what you mean by "pre-determined outcome"?

A pre-determined outcome would be when there no "explicitly stated level of bio mass" that would trigger a "relaxation " of current or future limits because without that the ""process"" (and i use that loosely)can only have a Status Quo outcome or a Reduction Outcome regardless of what the data shows.

Not having a shot at you , just saying if there is no trigger point then the outcome is pre-determined as the opposing outcome can not become a reality.

BigE

[Matthew Campbell]

A pre-determined outcome would be when there no "explicitly stated level of bio mass" that would trigger a "relaxation " of current or future limits because without that the ""process"" (and i use that loosely)can only have a Status Quo outcome or a Reduction Outcome regardless of what the data shows.

Not having a shot at you , just saying if there is no trigger point then the outcome is pre-determined as the opposing outcome can not become a reality.

BigE

Respectfully, BigE, the level of spawning biomass required before any sort of catch limits would be relaxed would be set as part of the harvest strategy process. As an example, the coral trout quota was increased for the 2018/19 season (https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/published.exp/sl-2018-0037) by 200 tonnes. In that instance catch rates had increased to a point where an increase in quota was appropriate. Setting this level is not part of the stock assessment process but uses consultation with stakeholders through the harvest strategy.

[Ducksnutz]

Remember when Fishing was a pastime enjoyed by families and friends and......... never mind, on with the politics.😎

[scottar]

Respectfully, BigE, the level of spawning biomass required before any sort of catch limits would be relaxed would be set as part of the harvest strategy process. As an example, the coral trout quota was increased for the 2018/19 season (https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/published.exp/sl-2018-0037) by 200 tonnes. In that instance catch rates had increased to a point where an increase in quota was appropriate. Setting this level is not part of the stock assessment process but uses consultation with stakeholders through the harvest strategy.

So why wasn't the amateur bag limit revised as well?

[Matthew Campbell]

So why wasn't the amateur bag limit revised as well?

I'm not the person to ask, Scott. Still right for Sunday week? I look forward to discussing this and other issues.

[scottar]

I'm not the person to ask, Scott. Still right for Sunday week? I look forward to discussing this and other issues.

Look forward to it Matthew. I sent an email earlier with contact details.

[banshee]

Respectfully, BigE, the level of spawning biomass required before any sort of catch limits would be relaxed would be set as part of the harvest strategy process. As an example, the coral trout quota was increased for the 2018/19 season (https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/published.exp/sl-2018-0037) by 200 tonnes. In that instance catch rates had increased to a point where an increase in quota was appropriate. Setting this level is not part of the stock assessment process but uses consultation with stakeholders through the harvest strategy.

Are QLD rec fishers stakeholders?

[billfisher]

Are QLD rec fishers stakeholders?

Yes, but they don't have a quota and it's open entry (no limits on the numbers of fishermen).

[Matthew Campbell]

Here is is a fact that one of the authors, Mathew will not dispute. If since the last biomass assessment there were zero fishable days, the model they use would still show a decline in biomass. That is an extreme example but it highlights the seriously crap modelling they are using to restrict all of our past times.

Chris, with respect, I dispute many things you’ve said in this thread, especially this “fact”.

[castlemaine]

There's been a lot of criticism of Scientists here.

In another life, I worked for environmental scientists. Effect on the Great Barrier Reef, of all things.

How does a scientist get funding?

If they say everything is 'hunky-dory' , then why provide you with funding and equipment? So the best thing to do is to fudge the figures, run a scare campaign, blame a group (fishers in this case) for the poor sustainability, at very best ' let me check and see if this is the cause', etc.

"But I can't do this without funding"

I don't blame for minute for this approach, it's a political game, but I wonder if politicians listen to the ones that benefit them the most electorally eg Pandering to the Greens.

[billfisher]

There's been a lot of criticism of Scientists here.

In another life, I worked for environmental scientists. Effect on the Great Barrier Reef, of all things.

How does a scientist get funding?

If they say everything is 'hunky-dory' , then why provide you with funding and equipment? So the best thing to do is to fudge the figures, run a scare campaign, blame a group (fishers in this case) for the poor sustainability, at very best ' let me check and see if this is the cause', etc.

"But I can't do this without funding"

I don't blame for minute for this approach, it's a political game, but I wonder if politicians listen to the ones that benefit them the most electorally eg Pandering to the Greens.

What's your point? We are relying on Fisheries Scientists here. They don't have any vested interest that I can see in calling for more restrictions, and bear in mind they are on salaries and don't rely on grants. And all the Greens are interested in is more marine parks.

[Matthew Campbell]

You:
Why isn’t this forum a suitable place for discussion? Me:
There's been a lot of criticism of Scientists here. In another life, I worked for environmental scientists. Effect on the Great Barrier Reef, of all things. How does a scientist get funding? If they say everything is 'hunky-dory' , then why provide you with funding and equipment? So the best thing to do is to fudge the figures, run a scare campaign, blame a group (fishers in this case) for the poor sustainability, at very best ' let me check and see if this is the cause', etc. "But I can't do this without funding" I don't blame for minute for this approach, it's a political game, but I wonder if politicians listen to the ones that benefit them the most electorally eg Pandering to the Greens.

[Lovey80]

Chris, with respect, I dispute many things you’ve said in this thread, especially this “fact”.

Your model increases the theoretical take from the rec sector based on the growth of boat/trailer registrations does it not?

[banshee]

Your model increases the theoretical take from the rec sector based on the growth of boat/trailer registrations does it not?

And the assumption that everyone 'bags out' every time?

[banshee]

Respectfully, BigE, the level of spawning biomass required before any sort of catch limits would be relaxed would be set as part of the harvest strategy process. As an example, the coral trout quota was increased for the 2018/19 season (https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/published.exp/sl-2018-0037) by 200 tonnes. In that instance catch rates had increased to a point where an increase in quota was appropriate. Setting this level is not part of the stock assessment process but uses consultation with stakeholders through the harvest strategy.

What body represents rec fishers at harvest strategy meetings?.......The example confuses the shit out of me (not hard).......If every time there appears to be a little meat left on the bone why throw it out to the dogs instead of putting it back in the fridge,surely the 200t of trout would have served the reef better left in place?Further to this,how much of this particular 200t went overseas to make a handful richer and how much stayed here to benefit us?

[Noelm]

Your model increases the theoretical take from the rec sector based on the growth of boat/trailer registrations does it not?
Is there another way?

[Matthew Campbell]

Your model increases the theoretical take from the rec sector based on the growth of boat/trailer registrations does it not?
Along with the statewide surveys, diarists and boat ramp surveys. Did you read the stock assessment document? There’s a link to it below.

[Matthew Campbell]

And the assumption that everyone 'bags out' every time?
That is not assumed in the stock assessment. If you’re interested in the methods used they can be found in this document:

http://era.daf.qld.gov.au/id/eprint/6341/1/SnapperStockAssessment2018V3.pdf

[billfisher]

What body represents rec fishers at harvest strategy meetings?.......The example confuses the shit out of me (not hard).......If every time there appears to be a little meat left on the bone why throw it out to the dogs instead of putting it back in the fridge,surely the 200t of trout would have served the reef better left in place?Further to this,how much of this particular 200t went overseas to make a handful richer and how much stayed here to benefit us?

Coral trout no's are very robust on the GBR. Ie even with the small increase in the quota the fishing pressure is very light.

[Matthew Campbell]

If you’re gunna shitcan the methods used in the stock assessment, at least read the stock assessment document first. Don’t rely on others’ interpretation of the methods and parrot their criticism because they may be mistaken in their understanding of stock assessment science.

[NAGG]

I posted this once before, but it's kind of relevant, a couple of years ago, there was a heap of volunteers at just about every ramp within miles of me, they were there every weekend over quite a long period, they simply asked how many fishing on the boat, how many of selected species were caught (Snapper, Flathead and a few others, then a mixed category) most fishos told them to p1ss off, but some just gave them the details, how this was used, or how it was intended to be used, I don't know, but, it's probably the only semi reliable data available, whether something like this has been used and some simple formula was added to determine stocks is anyone's guess.

A few years back I saw NSW fisheries doing ramp surveys on the Hawkesbury River ……. You couldn't exactly tell them piss off .

Chris

[Noelm]

These people were just volunteers, they had an identification certificate to say they were representing some department, but there was no real legal obligation to tell them anything, I was questioned two weekends in a row, and gave them correct info.

[billfisher]

These people were just volunteers, they had an identification certificate to say they were representing some department, but there was no real legal obligation to tell them anything, I was questioned two weekends in a row, and gave them correct info.

The response rate would be recorded and a low response rate would trigger some adjustments and be mentioned in the report. The 2013/14 report said it was high across all methods:

"A Wash-up/Attitudinal Survey was conducted as the final contact with diarists to collect boat ownership details and examine fishers’ opinions and attitudes to various fishing-related matters. Also, a sample of households from the original Screening Survey that reported no intention to fish was re-contacted at the end of the diary period to identify and account for any unexpected fishing (the Non-intending Fisher Follow-up Survey). Response rates across all survey components were exceptionally high (often in excess of 90%) – confirming both the high levels of interest and co-operation by recreational fishers and the performance standards of the survey instrument. By calibrating against ABS population benchmarks (as at June 2013) and applying non-response adjustments, all survey results (including participation, effort, catch and boat ownership) have been expanded to represent the resident population of NSW and the ACT, aged five years and older"

[BigE]

Respectfully, BigE, the level of spawning biomass required before any sort of catch limits would be relaxed would be set as part of the harvest strategy process. As an example, the coral trout quota was increased for the 2018/19 season (https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/published.exp/sl-2018-0037) by 200 tonnes. In that instance catch rates had increased to a point where an increase in quota was appropriate. Setting this level is not part of the stock assessment process but uses consultation with stakeholders through the harvest strategy.


Very strange I don't remember any increase in the Rec Coral trout bag limit it is obviously my mistake ....... I'll have to be mindful of this at the ballot box next time , let me see there was some extra bio mass and the government boffins decided my share(rec fishermen) was ........ that's right none, lets give it to the commercial sector to send overseas ,,,,, let see where do i put that X

It will work it self out the government can be assured of that. ( MC please do not take this personally but dead set of all the things to pick an increase in the commercial take of Coral Trout is the reference point you choose, so out of touch with rec fisherman it beggar's belief)


BigE

[BigE]

i hear ya Duckie the world has gone mad.

BigE

[billfisher]

Very strange I don't remember any increase in the Rec Coral trout bag limit it is obviously my mistake ....... I'll have to be mindful of this at the ballot box next time , let me see there was some extra bio mass and the government boffins decided my share(rec fishermen) was ........ that's right none, lets give it to the commercial sector to send overseas ,,,,, let see where do i put that X

It will work it self out the government can be assured of that. ( MC please do not take this personally but dead set of all the things to pick an increase in the commercial take of Coral Trout is the reference point you choose, so out of touch with rec fisherman it beggar's belief)


BigE

The commercial quota and bag limits are not directly comparable as angling is open entry and the number of anglers in Nth Qld is going up. As well as there being no limit on the amount of trips you can do.

[Matthew Campbell]

Very strange I don't remember any increase in the Rec Coral trout bag limit it is obviously my mistake ....... I'll have to be mindful of this at the ballot box next time , let me see there was some extra bio mass and the government boffins decided my share(rec fishermen) was ........ that's right none, lets give it to the commercial sector to send overseas ,,,,, let see where do i put that X

It will work it self out the government can be assured of that. ( MC please do not take this personally but dead set of all the things to pick an increase in the commercial take of Coral Trout is the reference point you choose, so out of touch with rec fisherman it beggar's belief)


BigE
The government boffins decided nothing BigE. The increase was due to decision rules that were part of the harvest strategy as discussed by the relevant working group, which includes recreational fishers.

Why would I take anything you say personally, BigE? You've been so supportive of us government scientists for such a long time.

[Noelm]

This to and fro is the issue, we (rec fishers) will never trust "science" neither would we willingly give accurate details of our effort and catch numbers, in the main, we always want it our way, it's been that way forever and will never change, there is of course a handful that do their best to represent rec fishers, and give time to various committees and active groups, but these few are way outnumbered by a much more vocal majority who just refuse to accept that fish stocks are in trouble, and we have to accept harsh measures to save what's left, and put all the blame on the pro sector who are well organised with very accurate catch numbers. It's an emotive issue and there is no simple black and white answer, someone has to be hurt to make a difference.

[scottar]

The commercial quota and bag limits are not directly comparable as angling is open entry and the number of anglers in Nth Qld is going up. As well as there being no limit on the amount of trips you can do.

But if the extrapolated numbers are good enough to reduce bag limits, shouldn't they be all that is required for an increase as well ?

[billfisher]

But if the extrapolated numbers are good enough to reduce bag limits, shouldn't they be all that is required for an increase as well ?

What bag limits are you talking about?

[scottar]

What bag limits are you talking about?

Any if fisheries deems that the stocks can support additional take. Coral trout in this instance as was being discussed. If a number can be generated to tell us how many fish we are supposedly taking, surely the same system could be utilised to ascertain what additional bag limit could be taken by the number of people fishing without doing damage to stocks...………..or do the numbers only work one way? If you go by the argument you just raised, no recreational bag limit will ever be increased regardless of where stocks are at - short of something like bass which is a put and take fishery anyway.

[Noelm]

Some (not many admittedly) species have had restrictions lifted, Southern Bluefin Tuna, is one, Blue Groper is another, but mostly size limits increase, bag limits decrease, and methods get more restricted. Bag limits are a very contentious issue, for the couple of times a year fisher, like the holiday rec angler, only being able to get a few (say) Snapper once a year doesn't make sense, when the mad keen guy, who might fish 4 or more days a week can catch the same number every day, how is that equal? but, it's the only way to reliably enforce limits, as I said before, there is no simple answer that will suit everyone (including the fish)

[disorderly]

The government boffins decided nothing BigE. The increase was due to decision rules that were part of the harvest strategy as discussed by the relevant working group, which includes recreational fishers.




Rec fisherman decided to increase the commercial quota for Coral trout...?...yeah right..!..::)

I don't know how many of the boffins have been sitting on a reef system when a live trout boat sets up camp next to them and dispatch's all their little dories to smash every bommie in the general area...you might as well up anchor and go home...

With major new rec boating infrastructure and ramps going in around Cairns and Mission beach that had been planned for ages I just don't get it...

The effect of a robust rec fishing sector on the economy via spend from fisho's, reef charter and tourism has to be manyfold more than just relatively few jobs on the trout boats with all the fish heading offshore and any dead fish commanding $50 a kg or more and overpriced for local non fisho's...

I don't get how they work out their number for quota anyway...for most of us its not so much the total number but more so the numbers on a particular set of reefs or the fishing pressure in your local area.

For example, after camping a couple to several times a years In Missionary bay for years now..we dont even bother taking crab traps any more...and we talk to many other guys down there, some who plan ahead and come from interstate to fish that magnificent area for up to a week at a time and very few can actually catch a legal crab..and all just because of a local pro crabber or 2 who just dont smash the area on a daily basis but also go zipping up every single little creek in the area every single day buzzing any basking croc into the water and upsetting quiet lure casters who are trying to sneak around with their trolling motor...

I know the boffins dont take into account these sort of external factors that are not wholly based on fish science/numbers but are crucial to the livelihoods of many businesses in many small towns along the GBR coastline...

[billfisher]

Any if fisheries deems that the stocks can support additional take. Coral trout in this instance as was being discussed. If a number can be generated to tell us how many fish we are supposedly taking, surely the same system could be utilised to ascertain what additional bag limit could be taken by the number of people fishing without doing damage to stocks...………..or do the numbers only work one way? If you go by the argument you just raised, no recreational bag limit will ever be increased regardless of where stocks are at - short of something like bass which is a put and take fishery anyway.

You have bypassed my point that bag limits for amateurs are not comparable to quotas for commercial fishermen, given that angling is open entry and there are no trip limits. Especially when the number of anglers is rising.

[NAGG]

Without fail - every time the subject comes up about limiting recreational catch rates , closures , slot limits , marine reserves etc - there will always be fishoes that cry "foul" . they will cite "the science" or lack of - how it will destroy the boating & tackle industry / the cost of running my big boat etc ……. this thread is yet another example.

Just maybe - these changes imposed are in fact nothing more than a method of social engineering ….. a way of getting it out of our mind that fishing isn't a free for all way of harvesting protein. Because as night follows day many will ask themselves Is there a cost benefit or not........ I'm talking about the kill it & fillet it brigade - you know the type , those that carry the biggest ice box they can carry or go away with a freezer in tow.
I'll keep saying it - fishoes can be greedy buggers & if they can fill that esky …. they will & if regulations are put in place - many will flout them or try to find a way around them - talk of upgrades , or what other target species can we bag out on …… it's common to hear this.

There is an attitude that - there isn't a problem ….. because look at what I'm catching - except for the fact that they have probably towed their boat 100s of Kms from home & driven their boat 70 nm to some remote reef to make sure they get those fish.

I'm sorry if some of you feel offended by what I've written …… but from what I've seen , heard & experienced through my time on the water - I can totally understand how we have arrived at this point.

Chris

[billfisher]

.::)

I don't know how many of the boffins have been sitting on a reef system when a live trout boat sets up camp next to them and dispatch's all their little dories to smash every bommie in the general area...you might as well up anchor and go home...

With major new rec boating infrastructure and ramps going in around Cairns and Mission beach that had been planned for ages I just don't get it...

The effect of a robust rec fishing sector on the economy via spend from fisho's, reef charter and tourism has to be manyfold more than just relatively few jobs on the trout boats with all the fish heading offshore and any dead fish commanding $50 a kg or more and overpriced for local non fisho's...





There is no evidence that coral trout no's are anything but robust on the GBR. Also the spending you describe is consumer discretionary If it wasn't spent on fishing then why wouldn't it be spent on some other recreation?

[beergood]

Feel for the honest bloke that's trying to get something to local market.
Best thing I reckon is sandcrab bag. Crap when ya hear people taking 50 plus sandies

[disorderly]

There is no evidence that coral trout no's are anything but robust on the GBR. Also the spending you describe is consumer discretionary If it wasn't spent on fishing then why wouldn't it be spent on some other recreation?

Yup that's science for you ...broad strokes, generalisations and assuming that data for one area will be representative for all........

[billfisher]

Yup that's science for you ...broad strokes, generalisations and assuming that data for one area will be representative for all........

So why do you think your anecdotes are any better? Also the second point is economics, not science.

[banshee]

I don't have an iron in this fire,but if I did I would want to know the credentials of those representing me at these harvest strategy meetings.......I would want more than 'the population is growing so the bag limit is growing even though it stays the same'..... before I forewent any claim on 'excess' stocks.

[Noelm]

Rec fisherman decided to increase the commercial quota for Coral trout...?...yeah right..!..::)

I don't know how many of the boffins have been sitting on a reef system when a live trout boat sets up camp next to them and dispatch's all their little dories to smash every bommie in the general area...you might as well up anchor and go home...

With major new rec boating infrastructure and ramps going in around Cairns and Mission beach that had been planned for ages I just don't get it...

The effect of a robust rec fishing sector on the economy via spend from fisho's, reef charter and tourism has to be manyfold more than just relatively few jobs on the trout boats with all the fish heading offshore and any dead fish commanding $50 a kg or more and overpriced for local non fisho's...

I don't get how they work out their number for quota anyway...for most of us its not so much the total number but more so the numbers on a particular set of reefs or the fishing pressure in your local area.

For example, after camping a couple to several times a years In Missionary bay for years now..we dont even bother taking crab traps any more...and we talk to many other guys down there, some who plan ahead and come from interstate to fish that magnificent area for up to a week at a time and very few can actually catch a legal crab..and all just because of a local pro crabber or 2 who just dont smash the area on a daily basis but also go zipping up every single little creek in the area every single day buzzing any basking croc into the water and upsetting quiet lure casters who are trying to sneak around with their trolling motor...

I know the boffins dont take into account these sort of external factors that are not wholly based on fish science/numbers but are crucial to the livelihoods of many businesses in many small towns along the GBR coastline...

I don't quite understand why when a pro boat, with dories, line fishing, would make you pack up and go home, they are fishing the same as you, and as such, have just as much chance as you at catching something, that logic doesn't make a lot of sense to me, just as why a crabber would continue to "smash" an area daily when you say there's no crabs left there, wouldn't the pros move on?

[NAGG]

I don't quite understand why when a pro boat, with dories, line fishing, would make you pack up and go home, they are fishing the same as you, and as such, have just as much chance as you at catching something, that logic doesn't make a lot of sense to me, just as why a crabber would continue to "smash" an area daily when you say there's no crabs left there, wouldn't the pros move on?

I would have thought that a commercial boat sitting on a reef for days on end - operating several dories would have a considerable impact on an area . These blokes do it for a living and their effort would be much higher than the average rec fisher . They will be out there working on days that would keep the rec angler in port . I certainly don't know of too many people that carry a bathyscope to aid with their fishing (probably should for trout).

Chris

[chris69]

Any trout or line boat would not stay at a reef for more than a day or 2 as the reef shuts down with the boat activity so its not that all the fish are caught there just smarter than the guys trying to catch them.

[Volvo]

Any trout or line boat would not stay at a reef for more than a day or 2 as the reef shuts down with the boat activity so its not that all the fish are caught there just smarter than the guys trying to catch them.

Where your wrong buddy :), some stay out the for two or three weeks till they are full up.
Pay for deckies wages profit n expenses.
Wouldnt do that in two days.
1700 or so fizh per trip for some. But thats their living :).

[Volvo]

I have some good friends who do it for a living ( And Nice Folk too ) and dont begrudge them their living , they work hard and cant say there isnt any risk involved when they are out there so long. What annoys me is when regs are brought in as if the Rec Fisho is doing damage to the Fishery..
Something to think about is for when someone from the Country travels to the Coast few times a year to enjoy the passtime and try catch a feed to take home at the same time.
Their input into the economy per each time they may travel including Fuel for Boat and Car , accomodation , bait , Ice , tackle etc can run quite costly, whilst say for me for example who lives on the Coast and if the weather permits can run out to the reef for a day trip and if not can run up a creek somewhere for a feed of Bream , Whiting or whatever ??>
Now who would you say has more input into the economy and who is most dissadavataged ??..
And i still dont believe we should be trying to feed the rest of the World with our Product :)!!!!!!...
Also Believe the nursery grounds where fish rely to grow , spawn etc should be no go for Commercial activeties ..
My Two Bobs worth mindyou and i am not a Scientist :)..

[Dirtyfuzz]

Coral trout no's are very robust on the GBR. Ie even with the small increase in the quota the fishing pressure is very light.

I call bullshit, coral trout fishery gets hit hard from the commercial and charter sector, swains reef is a shadow of its former self!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chris69]

Where your wrong buddy :), some stay out the for two or three weeks till they are full up.
Pay for deckies wages profit n expenses.
Wouldnt do that in two days.
1700 or so fizh per trip for some. But thats their living :).

Well your wrong they stay out for weeks....... yes..... just not on the same reef have you ever been to the swains there's more than a couple of reefs you might want to read what I wrote before you have a go they don't stay on
a reef .

[bluefin59]

There is no evidence that coral trout no's are anything but robust on the GBR. Also the spending you describe is consumer discretionary If it wasn't spent on fishing then why wouldn't it be spent on some other recreation?

Tell that to the people of Cooktown and see what they say , quite a nomber of pros have moved up the coast to Cooktown from cairns and are taking the local reefs by storm decemating the fishing areas that the loo calls have been using for years . And that’s from the horses mouth as in the local rec anglers up there . Matt

[billfisher]

I call bullshit, coral trout fishery gets hit hard from the commercial and charter sector, swains reef is a shadow of its former self!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well the latest stock assessment says otherwise:

http://era.daf.qld.gov.au/id/eprint/7009/1/Queensland%20coral%20trout%20stock%20assessment%20 report%20final%202019.pdf

"Over the last five years, 2013-14 to 2017-18, the Queensland total harvest averaged 983 tonnes (t) per year. Sectoral shares were 82% commercial (806 t) and 18% recreational (177 t). Note that commercial harvest is based on logbook reporting, whereas recreational harvest is estimated and subject to greater uncertainty.
The previous stock assessment estimated that in July 2012 the stock was at 60% of unfished biomass (i.e. before fishing began) over the areas commonly fished by commercial fishers. This stock assessment updates the existing model to cover the full extent of the GBR in Queensland waters and includes harvest information from the recreational sector.
This stock assessment used a spatial age-structured model with a yearly time step based on financial years. The model considered twelve spatial sub-populations (“strata”) of fish based primarily on differences in coral reef habitat.
The model incorporated data spanning the period from 1961-62 to 2017-18 (including commercial harvest (1988-89 to 2017-18); historical commercial (1961-62 to 1981-82); recreational harvest (199697 to 2013-14); age monitoring (1994-95 to 2004-05); and underwater visual surveys (1982-83 to 2017-18)).
Model analyses suggested that biomass declined between 1951-52 and 2003-04 to 55% unfished biomass. In 2017-18, the stock level was estimated to be 68% unfished total biomass.
Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) was estimated at 1740 t per year, and the yield consistent with a biomass ratio of 68% (a proxy for maximum economic yield in this fishery) was estimated at 1398 t (all sectors, excluding Torres Strait)".

[Volvo]

Well your wrong they stay out for weeks....... yes..... just not on the same reef have you ever been to the swains there's more than a couple of reefs you might want to read what I wrote before you have a go they don't stay on
a reef .

Where did i say they stay on the same Reef ??...

[disorderly]

I don't quite understand why when a pro boat, with dories, line fishing, would make you pack up and go home, they are fishing the same as you, and as such, have just as much chance as you at catching something, that logic doesn't make a lot of sense to me, just as why a crabber would continue to "smash" an area daily when you say there's no crabs left there, wouldn't the pros move on?

A couple of the guys above have partly answered your questions and its a hard thing to explain if you haven't fished up this way before.....

they are better and more clued in then the average fisho and certainly me and they use the bathyscope and they are fit, fast guys in little manoeuvrable dories that don't even have to anchor which makes it easy to just stop at every pressure point and drop a line straight onto the trouts head basically....and as also mentioned they just anchor on each system till its been done over and then just move on to the next and repeat until the tanks are full and then just meet up with a truck and offload and keep moving...most of the reef is 40-100km's out so there are also just so many days and weeks when its very difficult for a rec guy to get out with sometimes many months of 15-20 knot tradewinds blowing....

The reefs here are just made up of a lot of coral bommies and outcrops with just sand in between.....the trout often hang out on those bommies and are the dominant fish that if a bait is dropped in the right zone they will scoott out and grab it....when the live trout boats anchor up on a reef system they just send out the dories and they virtually hit every bommie possible...they miss some and more trout move in to replace those taken over time but they really do "smash" it hard.....I had a look through a live trout holding facility in cairns one day......I forget how many the guy told me were there but it was many thousands or tens of thousands at any given time....

as for the mudcrabs..I didnt say there were none left there...I am only allowed 4 pots and my strike rate over the last 5 years makes it not worthwhile... ..I'm not sure how many the pro guys can have ..but there are nine short creeks in the Missionary bay system and when they are checking all their pots it takes them quite a while buzzing up and down all the creeks...

[TheRealPoMo]

Without fail - every time the subject comes up about limiting recreational catch rates , closures , slot limits , marine reserves etc - there will always be fishoes that cry "foul" . they will cite "the science" or lack of - how it will destroy the boating & tackle industry / the cost of running my big boat etc ……. this thread is yet another example.

Just maybe - these changes imposed are in fact nothing more than a method of social engineering ….. a way of getting it out of our mind that fishing isn't a free for all way of harvesting protein. Because as night follows day many will ask themselves Is there a cost benefit or not........ I'm talking about the kill it & fillet it brigade - you know the type , those that carry the biggest ice box they can carry or go away with a freezer in tow.
I'll keep saying it - fishoes can be greedy buggers & if they can fill that esky …. they will & if regulations are put in place - many will flout them or try to find a way around them - talk of upgrades , or what other target species can we bag out on …… it's common to hear this.

There is an attitude that - there isn't a problem ….. because look at what I'm catching - except for the fact that they have probably towed their boat 100s of Kms from home & driven their boat 70 nm to some remote reef to make sure they get those fish.

I'm sorry if some of you feel offended by what I've written …… but from what I've seen , heard & experienced through my time on the water - I can totally understand how we have arrived at this point.

ChrisWell said Chris.
That ain't recreation.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Noelm]

Can't say that a bathyscope would be that expensive, or difficult to use, if you think that's how they smash the fish, just buy one, it's just another "tool" no different to your GPS, sounder, $700 reel or fancy boat, if you can't beat them, join them! Let's be perfectly clear here, I am not defending or hanging shit on anyone, I am just kind of pointing out that shit fights get nothing done, and we can't have it all our own way all the time.

[disorderly]

Can't say that a bathyscope would be that expensive, or difficult to use, if you think that's how they smash the fish, just buy one, it's just another "tool" no different to your GPS, sounder, $700 reel or fancy boat, if you can't beat them, join them! Let's be perfectly clear here, I am not defending or hanging shit on anyone, I am just kind of pointing out that shit fights get nothing done, and we can't have it all our own way all the time.

You really need to watch them work to appreciate how good they are at their craft....and I do have a bathyscope but its not much use on a regular fishing boat ..much better suited to a very low sided , centre console dory that catchs little wind and is much easier to lean over the side as well as fish out of......all very easy when you have a mothership anchored up in the lee of a reef system and you can just buzz back and forward rather then needing a 100-200km round trip to catch your 7 trout......

[Volvo]

You know at the end of the day each and every one of us will talk ourselves to death over this and other topics , fill in time and get nowhere except satisfy our own ego lol.
Which tends to be the norm with Forums . We all have a point and as long as we appreciate each others point of view all good .
Would like to think in fifteen ,twenty years from no i can get up and say "Toldya so" but that would mean i would get to live as long as my Mom or close there and somehow doubt it but if i do and Ausfish is still up n running i will get up n say " Toldya so "..
:)

[NAGG]

Any trout or line boat would not stay at a reef for more than a day or 2 as the reef shuts down with the boat activity so its not that all the fish are caught there just smarter than the guys trying to catch them.

depends on how big the reef is or how many boats are around - doesn't it ? …….. my last trip to NQ earlier this year - we saw a dory boat on day 1 & it left on day 5 (headed further north)

Chris

[NAGG]

Well the latest stock assessment says otherwise:

http://era.daf.qld.gov.au/id/eprint/7009/1/Queensland%20coral%20trout%20stock%20assessment%20 report%20final%202019.pdf

"Over the last five years, 2013-14 to 2017-18, the Queensland total harvest averaged 983 tonnes (t) per year. Sectoral shares were 82% commercial (806 t) and 18% recreational (177 t). Note that commercial harvest is based on logbook reporting, whereas recreational harvest is estimated and subject to greater uncertainty.
The previous stock assessment estimated that in July 2012 the stock was at 60% of unfished biomass (i.e. before fishing began) over the areas commonly fished by commercial fishers. This stock assessment updates the existing model to cover the full extent of the GBR in Queensland waters and includes harvest information from the recreational sector.
This stock assessment used a spatial age-structured model with a yearly time step based on financial years. The model considered twelve spatial sub-populations (“strata”) of fish based primarily on differences in coral reef habitat.
The model incorporated data spanning the period from 1961-62 to 2017-18 (including commercial harvest (1988-89 to 2017-18); historical commercial (1961-62 to 1981-82); recreational harvest (199697 to 2013-14); age monitoring (1994-95 to 2004-05); and underwater visual surveys (1982-83 to 2017-18)).
Model analyses suggested that biomass declined between 1951-52 and 2003-04 to 55% unfished biomass. In 2017-18, the stock level was estimated to be 68% unfished total biomass.
Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) was estimated at 1740 t per year, and the yield consistent with a biomass ratio of 68% (a proxy for maximum economic yield in this fishery) was estimated at 1398 t (all sectors, excluding Torres Strait)".

What was the tonnage during the early to mid 2000s ? double - …. more than double ?

I haven't looked into the numbers - but why is the take so much lower today than it was a dozen or so years ago ? …… is it effort or declining stock ?

Just asking

Chris

[billfisher]

What was the tonnage during the early to mid 2000s ? double - …. more than double ?

I haven't looked into the numbers - but why is the take so much lower today than it was a dozen or so years ago ? …… is it effort or declining stock ?

Just asking

Chris

Look at the second last paragraph - the stock has gone up from in

2003-04 at 55% unfished biomass compared to in 2017-18 to be 68% unfished total biomass.

[NAGG]

Look at the second last paragraph - the stock has gone up from in

2003-04 at 55% unfished biomass compared to in 2017-18 to be 68% unfished total biomass.



That's not what I'm asking you …… I want to compare tonnage today Vs 15, 16 , 17 years ago


I can tell you it was near to or above 2000 tonne

Chris

[Aussie123]

Trout numbers are a bit unique as the bulk of the commercial take are taken from shallow waters due to the live export trade so a huge part of the biomass do not get targeted by the commercial sector.
As far as a commercial species goes, they are probably more protected than all other species caught due to their high value as a live fish

[billfisher]

That's not what I'm asking you …… I want to compare tonnage today Vs 15, 16 , 17 years ago


I can tell you it was near to or above 2000 tonne

Chris

Well, it was what you were asking me, ie

"
I haven't looked into the numbers - but why is the take so much lower today than it was a dozen or so years ago ? …… is it effort or declining stock ?"

[chris69]

depends on how big the reef is or how many boats are around - doesn't it ? …….. my last trip to NQ earlier this year - we saw a dory boat on day 1 & it left on day 5 (headed further north)

Chris


There might have been mackerel dories were you were wide of lucinda and not all of a reef is 100% fishable regardless of how big or small it is you won't pull any trout or lipper out of stag coral you look for plate coral and the best part of the reef is the weather face there's only so much of that you can work, even the charter boats don't just go to one reef and stay there because the reef goes shy ,about the only place a charter boat or line boat would stay for awhile is if they went to Fredrics or Kato or sumarez because there so far out and they big ones and not fished as much as the inner reefs or the swains.

[Lovey80]

I’m not sure why we’ve been so fixated on CRFF in a RRFF stock assessment thread. But for those that are interested, my diving on coral reefs in other parts of the world (Red Sea, Thailand etc), most of which are protected. When ever I see a large coral trout it is noticeable how much distance the smaller trout give it a wide birth. You’ll have one big fish dominate a large area but in places where there are no large fish you’ll see large numbers of smaller fish. It’s like they all get along until they hit a certain size then they become really territorial and either fight or eat each other (haven’t seen that yet).

While the live trout trade trade would only be targeting fish down to probably 30 or so meters because of barotrauma issues, diving down to 40m and using artificial light to look deeper on the reef edge there are plenty of trout including some very big ones down deeper than 70-80m

[billfisher]

That's not what I'm asking you …… I want to compare tonnage today Vs 15, 16 , 17 years ago


I can tell you it was near to or above 2000 tonne

Chris

In any case it was briefly around 2000T for 3 years around the year 2000 - see the graph on page 18.

[rtp1984]

Can't say that a bathyscope would be that expensive, or difficult to use, if you think that's how they smash the fish, just buy one, it's just another "tool" no different to your GPS, sounder, $700 reel or fancy boat, if you can't beat them, join them! Let's be perfectly clear here, I am not defending or hanging shit on anyone, I am just kind of pointing out that shit fights get nothing done, and we can't have it all our own way all the time.


I have a bathoscope. Cheap as chips.

Doesnt help me catch fish, quite the opposite, cos I just end up looking at all the cool shit on the bottom, and get depressed at all the fish that I though were not there, but turns out I’m just not good enough to catch...

[Volvo]

Whats the old saying :)????, 100% of the Fish are caught by 1% of the Fishermen . Which if right it means Boatramp etc figures regarding Rec Fishos are crap::)..

[billfisher]

Whats the old saying :)????, 100% of the Fish are caught by 1% of the Fishermen . Which if right it means Boatramp etc figures regarding Rec Fishos are crap::)..

I think the saying is that 10% of fishermen catch 90% of the fish. In any case why wouldn't that be captured by the surveys?

[BigE]

I think the saying is that 10% of fishermen catch 90% of the fish. In any case why wouldn't that be captured by the surveys?

Cause 10% of fisho's will tell the creel survey administrators too "F@#K right off buddy" ...... at least I do cause I know there not there to help me.

BigE

[Noelm]

Cause 10% of fisho's will tell the creel survey administrators too "F@#K right off buddy" ...... at least I do cause I know there not there to help me.

BigE
While I don't disagree with you, how do you know they are not there to help? that's the biggest talking point here, unknown rec take, there is no other/better method that I can think of.

[Muzza]

Noelm,

While you are correct in that some are genuinely trying to help in getting these numbers, and maybe for the right reasons, the trust in any govt agency, especially if politically connected or backed is very low in society. Unfortunately that distrust is often very valid and transverses(?) across to all areas of our lives, including fishing studies. I'm on the side of caution and maybe, if transparency on why, where and how these figures are to be used and by whom, I could be possibly convinced it is a good thing. For me the jury is still out.
Cheers
Muz

[scottar]

While I don't disagree with you, how do you know they are not there to help? that's the biggest talking point here, unknown rec take, there is no other/better method that I can think of.

Bring in mandatory catch reporting for any species that is of interest much the way they did for pro fishers. Simple enough in the modern era of mobile phones. Of course it would then mean that figures couldn't be fudged which may or may not be what is wanted by other parties if it didn't fit their agenda. Bit like the recreational fishing license in Queensland. Don't get me wrong - the government would love to take our money - what they aren't keen on is then having to answer to recreational fishers on a couple of accounts - namely "Where has the money gone?" and "Now we are financial stakeholders, what do we get for our dollar?".

[Lovey80]

While I don't disagree with you, how do you know they are not there to help? that's the biggest talking point here, unknown rec take, there is no other/better method that I can think of.

scottar is on the money below. It was what the rec sector asked for last time around as it was obvious to all to see that the rec catch data was complete bumkin that was extrapolated out.


Bring in mandatory catch reporting for any species that is of interest much the way they did for pro fishers. Simple enough in the modern era of mobile phones. Of course it would then mean that figures couldn't be fudged which may or may not be what is wanted by other parties if it didn't fit their agenda. Bit like the recreational fishing license in Queensland. Don't get me wrong - the government would love to take our money - what they aren't keen on is then having to answer to recreational fishers on a couple of accounts - namely "Where has the money gone?" and "Now we are financial stakeholders, what do we get for our dollar?".

A catch card is a must at this point and we should be rejecting all of these so called biomass assessments until we get one. That way they don’t get to extrapolate data from a phone pol and some boat ramp surveys to come up with fanciful figures.

[Noelm]

While some sort of catch recording would be good, how do you get people to do it? it has been said here plenty of times that most would/did tell data collectors to get lost, how do you enforce accurate catch records? fishing licenses are another issue altogether, we (in NSW) have had them for ages now, and "mostly" the money raised has been used to buy out pros, upgrade ramps and install artificial reef structures, I am pretty sure a big lump would have been used for "administration" and a fair old amount used for non fishing use, but in the main it's kind of traceable.

[ShaneC]

Sat here reading some of this and cannot sit on the sidelines any longer.

As said earlier this WAS a pre determined result. If you work for DAFF and need an explanation of this this it goes as follows... 'this is what we want to do, this is what we have drafted. Go out and justify our position, ignore anything that doesn't swing with our narrative so that we don't even have to pull out the liquid paper when we release the legislation'. Got it Matt? Yep... but you already knew that.

Research gaps everywhere, sectors with unknown take, industry that has shown absolutely zero decline in catch records, industry attrition not taken into account etc etc etc. I could go on forever. But it makes no difference, DAFF has been infiltrated by people with historical environmental advocacy, and the 'precautionary principle' they spruik is utter shit. This is regulation for regulation's sake. Nothing more, nothing less. Be seen to do something at the cost of an industry. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

And yes, for what it's worth I stand in a position as a stakeholder with a large financial interest to lose due to this reform. It's only fair to be open about that.

I could go on forever, but it is interesting that the State Ombudsman is investigating DAFF over this reform, it has been done dishonestly, with prejudice, and very very sneakily.

Final question.... maybe Matt can answer this. Since biomass is based solely on commercial catch.... I come across some massive shows of fish from time to time. Snapper and pearlies, 20m high, 50m long and 50m wide. Dropped a pilly in and not gotten a bite. How do you count those fish??

[scottar]

While some sort of catch recording would be good, how do you get people to do it? it has been said here plenty of times that most would/did tell data collectors to get lost, how do you enforce accurate catch records? fishing licenses are another issue altogether, we (in NSW) have had them for ages now, and "mostly" the money raised has been used to buy out pros, upgrade ramps and install artificial reef structures, I am pretty sure a big lump would have been used for "administration" and a fair old amount used for non fishing use, but in the main it's kind of traceable.

Pro fishers have to report their catch prior to hitting the ramp or wharf. No prior report they get fined. Shane may be able to elaborate further but that's my understanding. Pretty straight forward with a text message.

[Noelm]

Sat here reading some of this and cannot sit on the sidelines any longer.

As said earlier this WAS a pre determined result. If you work for DAFF and need an explanation of this this it goes as follows... 'this is what we want to do, this is what we have drafted. Go out and justify our position, ignore anything that doesn't swing with our narrative so that we don't even have to pull out the liquid paper when we release the legislation'. Got it Matt? Yep... but you already knew that.

Research gaps everywhere, sectors with unknown take, industry that has shown absolutely zero decline in catch records, industry attrition not taken into account etc etc etc. I could go on forever. But it makes no difference, DAFF has been infiltrated by people with historical environmental advocacy, and the 'precautionary principle' they spruik is utter shit. This is regulation for regulation's sake. Nothing more, nothing less. Be seen to do something at the cost of an industry. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

And yes, for what it's worth I stand in a position as a stakeholder with a large financial interest to lose due to this reform. It's only fair to be open about that.

I could go on forever, but it is interesting that the State Ombudsman is investigating DAFF over this reform, it has been done dishonestly, with prejudice, and very very sneakily.

Final question.... maybe Matt can answer this. Since biomass is based solely on commercial catch.... I come across some massive shows of fish from time to time. Snapper and pearlies, 20m high, 50m long and 50m wide. Dropped a pilly in and not gotten a bite. How do you count those fish??
I don't think counting a "show" on a sounder would benefit anything, there is no way (short of diving) to be 100% sure what species they are, the same school could be counted a dozen times by different people.

[ShaneC]

Well a large show of fish that dont bite is uncounted biomass by their reckoning is it not?

In my game if you cannot tell what species you are looking at on your sounder it's time to rethink your career aspirations Noel.

[copie]

Totally agree with lovely 80 and the rest caught will be floating dead............what a waste recreational boats should not have boat limits only catch limits.

[chris69]

Well a large show of fish that dont bite is uncounted biomass by their reckoning is it not?

In my game if you cannot tell what species you are looking at on your sounder it's time to rethink your career aspirations Noel.

If I dropped a pilly on 50ton of snapper and pearlies and did not catch one I'd be rethinking my carreer too..

[billfisher]

Well a large show of fish that dont bite is uncounted biomass by their reckoning is it not?

In my game if you cannot tell what species you are looking at on your sounder it's time to rethink your career aspirations Noel.

The stock assessments don't rely on counting every fish. They use catch rates compared to effort and age and size data, plus a lot of mathematical models. There is a fairly wide error range due to all the uncertainties, but it looks like something needs to be done. Or would you rather a continued downward decline leading to something like the situation in SA where they are contemplating a ban on snapper fishing?

[BigE]

Looks like were back to the below:

The point of sustainability at which bag limits will increase, I have no problem with the boffins showing evidence that indicates that there is a need for the resource pressure to be reduced so that the stock is sustainable ,,,,,,But that would also mean that there would be a point at which the stock would be able to sustain an increase in resource utilisation ( an increase in bag limits ) without a balance in the equation then it is just a social engineering exercise to restrict the access to a resource of Joe Average and nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the resource.


BigE

[billfisher]

Looks like were back to the below:

The point of sustainability at which bag limits will increase, I have no problem with the boffins showing evidence that indicates that there is a need for the resource pressure to be reduced so that the stock is sustainable ,,,,,,But that would also mean that there would be a point at which the stock would be able to sustain an increase in resource utilisation ( an increase in bag limits ) without a balance in the equation then it is just a social engineering exercise to restrict the access to a resource of Joe Average and nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the resource.


BigE

We are hardly 'back to that'. When stocks are rebuilt enough to contemplate more fishing the we can consider it - and we are a long way off that. And considering recreational fishing is open entry with no quotas the rec catch can go up even if the bag limit stays the same.

[castlemaine]

What's your point? We are relying on Fisheries Scientists here. They don't have any vested interest that I can see in calling for more restrictions, and bear in mind they are on salaries and don't rely on grants. And all the Greens are interested in is more marine parks.
I think you'd be surprised that government workers may not be as independent as you think, just like any job. the company has a plan either you're in or you're out, in a government job 'sidelined'. They may not agree with the flow but they salaries and promotions depend on it.

[billfisher]

I think you'd be surprised that government workers may not be as independent as you think, just like any job. the company has a plan either you're in or you're out, in a government job 'sidelined'. They may not agree with the flow but they salaries and promotions depend on it.

Our fisheries scientists are usually criticised for being too close to the fishing industry and too slow to act with more restrictions. It took political pressure to get kingfish traps banned in NSW, snapper stocks are so low in SA they are now contemplated a complete ban, etc. What evidence do you have that the converse is true?

[scottar]

Had a meeting with Matthew this afternoon. Thanks again Matt for taking the time out of your weekend to sit down, explain and run through a few things with me. Rest assured there is a lot more goes into the stock assessment process and a lot more factors taken into account than I thought. Matt is obviously very passionate about what he does. He took me to task on a few things and pointed out a few things that I hadn't either picked up from my attempts to read the documentation or hadn't even thought to consider. Turns out, some of the information I was basing my questioning of the science on were blatantly incorrect too. If you are happy to approach the process with an open mind, take Matthew up on his offer of a chat.

[Noelm]

The last couple of lines is where we fall flat, "approach with an open mind" most rec anglers simply can't do this, it's all "we want" and that mentality will be impossible to change.

[scottar]

The last couple of lines is where we fall flat, "approach with an open mind" most rec anglers simply can't do this, it's all "we want" and that mentality will be impossible to change.

Which has to change if we want serious involvement in the fisheries process. Any reforms in relation to accuracy of data by involvement will need to driven by (and paid for by) us - recreational anglers. Until then, the best option we have is to offer our support to fisheries science or we will be left with the modelling we have. The opportunities have been made available to various entities within the recreational angling sector. Uptake on the opportunity has been piss poor to say the least. After having met with Matthew and having the process explained to some extent - would further recreational involvement have changed the outcome - possibly not as things certainly are not as rosy as we may like to think but regardless we really don't have the right to complain if we refuse to be involved.

[billfisher]

The last couple of lines is where we fall flat, "approach with an open mind" most rec anglers simply can't do this, it's all "we want" and that mentality will be impossible to change.

What I'm worried about is that next time there is some greenie excess, like yet more marine parks. Then when we try to make a scientific case the government might just tell us where to go based on our past dismissal of fisheries science.

[Lovey80]

The stock assessments don't rely on counting every fish. They use catch rates compared to effort and age and size data, plus a lot of mathematical models. There is a fairly wide error range due to all the uncertainties, but it looks like something needs to be done. Or would you rather a continued downward decline leading to something like the situation in SA where they are contemplating a ban on snapper fishing?

Outside of the Gold Coast Carter data, an area of which has very unique characteristics that should never be used to represent the whole fishery. What evidence is there of a decline?

[Lovey80]

Looks like were back to the below:

The point of sustainability at which bag limits will increase, I have no problem with the boffins showing evidence that indicates that there is a need for the resource pressure to be reduced so that the stock is sustainable ,,,,,,But that would also mean that there would be a point at which the stock would be able to sustain an increase in resource utilisation ( an increase in bag limits ) without a balance in the equation then it is just a social engineering exercise to restrict the access to a resource of Joe Average and nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the resource.


BigE

The real answer is never. The biomass model has inputs that show a continuous increase in the Recreational take because the number of registered boats over 6m increased by an average of 4% per year.

[Lovey80]

We are hardly 'back to that'. When stocks are rebuilt enough to contemplate more fishing the we can consider it - and we are a long way off that. And considering recreational fishing is open entry with no quotas the rec catch can go up even if the bag limit stays the same.

What do you call 4 fish with only one over 70cm per person per fishing day? (assuming you eat them before your next filing day with is more than likely).Weather+Non-Commercial Occupations+Bag Limits are a hell of a quota. Sure it may not be a fixed number but may as well be.

[Lovey80]

What I'm worried about is that next time there is some greenie excess, like yet more marine parks. Then when we try to make a scientific case the government might just tell us where to go based on our past dismissal of fisheries science.

During the MBMP implementation all sectors pointed towards all the fisheries in Moreton Bay being deemed sustainable. It was very quickly deemed by the Bligh government as "fear mongering" as marine parks were 100% about habitat protection and nothing to do with sustainable fisheries.

[scottar]

Outside of the Gold Coast Carter data, an area of which has very unique characteristics that should never be used to represent the whole fishery. What evidence is there of a decline?

As was explained to me today - we may well be still catching our bag limits, but we are using better gear, better and bigger boats, better electronics, more refined fishing techniques and travelling further. I couldn't disagree. I certainly can't fish the way I used to 30 years ago and catch as many fish unless there is a major spawning aggregation in play. Given the advances in everything we are using, we should be absolutely smashing the fish hell west and crooked if indeed there was no decline.

[billfisher]

What do you call 4 fish with only one over 70cm per person per fishing day? (assuming you eat them before your next filing day with is more than likely).Weather+Non-Commercial Occupations+Bag Limits are a hell of a quota. Sure it may not be a fixed number but may as well be.

It's not a quota - did you actually read my post? A quota is a total allowable catch for the sector. The bag limit is just for one day and there is no limit on the number of trips you can do. Also no limit on the number of recreational fishermen participating.

[billfisher]

During the MBMP implementation all sectors pointed towards all the fisheries in Moreton Bay being deemed sustainable. It was very quickly deemed by the Bligh government as "fear mongering" as marine parks were 100% about habitat protection and nothing to do with sustainable fisheries.

They are often justified in fisheries management terms, eg talk of a spillover effect. In the debate prior to the expansion of green zones to 33 % on the GBR we were told that the spillover effect would enhance the catch so much it would pay for the cost of the zoning. Instead the commercial catch just declined by about the same proportion as the zoning.

PS: 'habitat protection' seems odd - are your sure they weren't saying 'preserving biodiversity' was the justification?

[Lovey80]

It's not a quota - did you actually read my post? A quota is a total allowable catch for the sector. The bag limit is just for one day and there is no limit on the number of trips you can do. Also no limit on the number of recreational fishermen participating.

There is a limit. It's called weather. It's called having a job. Having a weekend from that job and have the weather play the game at the same time. having both of those align and 3 or 4 mates also having the time off. Then when all those things align, only 4 fish per person. The way you are talking about it there are thousands of big boats out every day of the year. If 5 fish @ 35cm previously, and then 4 fish didn't work whats to say this will work? They got it wrong the last 3 times, why should we listen to them now?

[chris69]

One thing I do know and that is petrol prices never go down and bag limits will never go up so we have just have to put up with it and that's because were not important enough and that's the way it is and always will be.

Drought on the land means drought on the sea if we have many many years like this ,this will affect fish stocks all the time as well as our increaseing population ,I can see the bag limits decreasing more and more on some species of fish until they introduce a no take.

[Lovey80]

They are often justifies in fisheries management terms, eg talk of a spillover effect. In the debate prior to the expansion of green zones to 33 % on the GBR we were told that the spillover effect would enhance the catch so much it would pay for the cost of the zoning. Instead the commercial catch just declined by about the same proportion as the zoning.

PS: 'habitat protection' seems odd - are your sure they weren't saying 'preserving biodiversity' was the justification?

It came out of their mouths on the tele. It was all about habitat protection because as we had pointed out Fish stocks were sustainable.

[billfisher]

There is a limit. It's called weather. It's called having a job. Having a weekend from that job and have the weather play the game at the same time. having both of those align and 3 or 4 mates also having the time off. Then when all those things align, only 4 fish per person. The way you are talking about it there are thousands of big boats out every day of the year. If 5 fish @ 35cm previously, and then 4 fish didn't work whats to say this will work? They got it wrong the last 3 times, why should we listen to them now?

So at least you have stopped calling it a 'quota' but it's not really a 'limit' either. You don't seem to realise that it's not all about you. The impact is collective and the partication in recreational fishing is going up. As to the weather - we have always had bad weather on occassions - but boats are bigger and better now and with better comunications. Also it not really a case of 'getting it wrong' they are just monitoring the state of the fishery and responding.

PS: Why do you need 3 or 4 mates to go fishing? 1 is ideal on my boat.

[Noelm]

Here is the lack of "open mind" at work, we are arguing whether it's a quota or a limit, or if it's either, arguing about fish stock data, arguing about how that data is collected, or if it's accurate, how the data is used, and still most wouldnt give info to authorised data collectors, we want our "take" regardless of scientific estimates of the available stocks. I don't profess to know the answer, I am not even sure there is a real answer, but, it's in our hands if we allow it to be.

[baitable]

So at least you have stopped calling it a 'quota' but it's not really a 'limit' either. You don't seem to realise that it's not all about you. The impact is collective and the partication in recreational fishing is going up. As to the weather - we have always had bad weather on occassions - but boats are bigger and better now and with better comunications. Also it not really a case of 'getting it wrong' they are just monitoring the state of the fishery and responding.

PS: Why do you need 3 or 4 mates to go fishing? 1 is ideal on my boat.

Think it might be different up here in QLD mate.... We have a bag limit which specifically means" in possession" . We cannot do a reef trip- do daily trips hit bag limits each day and head back in and stock fish in the fridge/freeer. Take coral trout for example you can only have 7 per person at any point in time. You cannot have a freezer in excess of your bag limit...

Facts- might pay to check them...

[billfisher]

Here is the lack of "open mind" at work, we are arguing whether it's a quota or a limit, or if it's either, arguing about fish stock data, arguing about how that data is collected, or if it's accurate, how the data is used, and still most wouldnt give info to authorised data collectors, we want our "take" regardless of scientific estimates of the available stocks. I don't profess to know the answer, I am not even sure there is a real answer, but, it's in our hands if we allow it to be.


Where did you get that idea, ie 'still most wouldnt give info to authorised data collectors'. Surely the response rate would be noted and a low one would be a trigger point for further action to ensure the integrety of the survey? The NSW survey I read noted the reponse rates were very high (over 90%).

[billfisher]

Think it might be different up here in QLD mate.... We have a bag limit which specifically means" in possession" . We cannot do a reef trip- do daily trips hit bag limits each day and head back in and stock fish in the fridge/freeer. Take coral trout for example you can only have 7 per person at any point in time. You cannot have a freezer in excess of your bag limit...

Facts- might pay to check them...

Well might be or is there a possession limit? And suerly the possession limit would be higher than the bag limit? Also it's hard to enforce. Ie how likely is it for your house to be raided in order to check how many fish you have in the freezer. Whats to stop you giving them away to freinds and relatives?

[billfisher]

Think it might be different up here in QLD mate.... We have a bag limit which specifically means" in possession" . We cannot do a reef trip- do daily trips hit bag limits each day and head back in and stock fish in the fridge/freeer. Take coral trout for example you can only have 7 per person at any point in time. You cannot have a freezer in excess of your bag limit...

Facts- might pay to check them...

According to this there is a possession limit for snapper of 20 - which is well above the bag limit

Correction, there is no possession limit for snapper - it's tailor which has one of 20::

https://www.qld.gov.au/recreation/activities/boating-fishing/rec-fishing/rules/limits-tidal#snapper

[Aussie123]

According to this there is a possession limit for snapper of 20 - which is well above the bag limit:

https://www.qld.gov.au/recreation/activities/boating-fishing/rec-fishing/rules/limits-tidal#snapper

The possession limit for Snapper in QLD is 4 fish only.
I don't know where you get that bag limit of 20 from.

[banshee]

Is there a daily bag limit in QLD as well as a possession limit?When holidaying in QLD I've always adhered to an in possession limit regardless of how many days I fish.

@Billfisher
Out of interest........ Which state do you reside in?

[billfisher]

The possession limit for Snapper in QLD is 4 fish only.
I don't know where you get that bag limit of 20 from.

That's a bag limit (4 per day). Actually there is no possession limit. It looks like I read the one below snapper, ie tailor which has a possession limit of 20:

Snapper



Species

Size and possession limits



All

35cm min
4 per person with no more than 1 over 70cm / 8 per boat with no more than 2 over 70cm (with 2 or more people on board)

[billfisher]

Is there a daily bag limit in QLD as well as a possession limit?When holidaying in QLD I've always adhered to an in possession limit regardless of how many days I fish.

@Billfisher
Out of interest........ Which state do you reside in?

NSW.

PS: I have corrected that - there is no possession limit for snapper according to the Qld government website.

[banshee]

According to this there is a possession limit for snapper of 20 - which is well above the bag limit:

https://www.qld.gov.au/recreation/activities/boating-fishing/rec-fishing/rules/limits-tidal#snapper

Probably time for you to bow out chief.....This says to me you don't have a f@!#$%g clue.

[billfisher]

Probably time for you to bow out chief.....This says to me you don't have a f@!#$%g clue.

All it says is that I read the line below (as I explained). Why the need to be obnoxious?

[TheGurn]

Another way to look at it is the bag limit in qld IS the 'in possession' limit.
Not a daily limit. If you live alone you can't have more than the bag limit on any day in your fridge.
If you live with a partner (who might not even fish) you can double it (after you get the first bag limit of fish home). If you give it all away or eat some of it, only then can you catch more... but only to make up the bag limit.

I read some southern visitors at hervey bay got done over with excess whiting after an inspection of their fridge a little while ago. Probably got reported rather than random inspection tho.

Cheers.

[Aussie123]

That's a bag limit (4 per day). Actually there is no possession limit. It looks like I read the one below snapper, ie tailor which has a possession limit of 20:

Snapper



Species
Size and possession limits


All
35cm min
4 per person with no more than 1 over 70cm / 8 per boat with no more than 2 over 70cm (with 2 or more people on board)




You are so wrong again.
There is a possession limit of 4 Snapper per person in QLD with the newly added boat possession limit of 8 Snapper.
There is no such thing as a daily bag limit for Snapper, daily bag limits went out years ago.

[billfisher]

You are so wrong again.
There is a possession limit of 4 Snapper per person in QLD with the newly added boat possession limit of 8 Snapper.
There is no such thing as a daily bag limit for Snapper, daily bag limits went out years ago.

Correct, but that's only clear from the preamble:

"Possession limits are in place to conserve heavily sought after species, species that are easily captured, share more catch, reduce illegal fish marketing and promote responsible fishing. Possession limits do not apply on a per day basis. Any fish you have caught previously and may be keeping at home in your freezer, for example, are included in your possession limit for a fish species".

[banshee]

Correct, but tjhat's onlt clear from the preamble:

"Possession limits are in place to conserve heavily sought after species, species that are easily captured, share more catch, reduce illegal fish marketing and promote responsible fishing. Possession limits do not apply on a per day basis. Any fish you have caught previously and may be keeping at home in your freezer, for example, are included in your possession limit for a fish species".

You don't fish much do you.......

[billfisher]

You don't fish much do you.......

Why would you think that? Quite a lot actually, just not often in Qld, mainly in NSW. I even have 2 boats.

[efc]

Is that because your ego couldn’t fit in just 1?

[billfisher]

Is that because your ego couldn’t fit in just 1?

Duh, to cover all the fishing styles.

[baitable]

Is there a daily bag limit in QLD as well as a possession limit?When holidaying in QLD I've always adhered to an in possession limit regardless of how many days I fish.

@Billfisher
Out of interest........ Which state do you reside in?

it is most definitely 100% a possession limit- there is no daily bag limit. You have been doing it correct mate.

[baitable]

Well might be or is there a possession limit? And suerly the possession limit would be higher than the bag limit? Also it's hard to enforce. Ie how likely is it for your house to be raided in order to check how many fish you have in the freezer. Whats to stop you giving them away to freinds and relatives?


The possession limit is the bag limit. They are one in the same. Yes its hard to enforce, but at the end of the day it all comes down to the individual and their practices- personally I have my own code of ethics which involves finishing the fish in my freezer before i head out for a fish again. No point stock piling- best eaten fresh, I also prefer trying to think of others and the following generation. In full disclosure though, I am a business owner and can generally organise my work around the weather so i'm pretty fortunate.

[Lucky_Phill]

There are no bag limits in Qld.

There are size and possession limits... and now boat limits on a couple of species.

At all times possession means " in possession ".. and yes, if you have 2 snapper in your freezer at home and you catch another 2... bazinger... that is your " possession " limit.

Of course there are grey areas......... ::)

Let's also remember there are "-

CRFF limits

Tidal species Limits

Other limits as of 1st September.

Take a few minutes and have a read here :- https://www.qld.gov.au/recreation/activities/boating-fishing/rec-fishing/rules/limits-tidal

Yes, you will need a degree to understand and comprehend ALL the info. :(

The fact is, the data used to make decisions by FQ is not good. We all know this, so no use arguing that point.

The fact is no one here has provided accurate data on the recreational harvest to FQ or any other body able to undertake research.

You can't bash the FQ guys on one hand and refuse to provide data on the other, and then tell them their data is crap.... seriously !

Thing is, the new regs are in.......... read up, be vigilant and if in doubt, call 13 7468 and ask the question.


Cheers LP

[Noelm]

There are no bag limits in Qld.

There are size and possession limits... and now boat limits on a couple of species.

At all times possession means " in possession ".. and yes, if you have 2 snapper in your freezer at home and you catch another 2... bazinger... that is your " possession " limit.

Of course there are grey areas......... ::)

Let's also remember there are "-

CRFF limits

Tidal species Limits

Other limits as of 1st September.

Take a few minutes and have a read here :- https://www.qld.gov.au/recreation/activities/boating-fishing/rec-fishing/rules/limits-tidal

Yes, you will need a degree to understand and comprehend ALL the info. :(

The fact is, the data used to make decisions by FQ is not good. We all know this, so no use arguing that point.

The fact is no one here has provided accurate data on the recreational harvest to FQ or any other body able to undertake research.

You can't bash the FQ guys on one hand and refuse to provide data on the other, and then tell them their data is crap.... seriously !

Thing is, the new regs are in.......... read up, be vigilant and if in doubt, call 13 7468 and ask the question.


Cheers LP
Agree 100% on the data business, how to get accurate data when everyone is so paranoid about giving information will be difficult.

[scottar]

So my discussions with Matthew have prompted me to delve further into the stock assessment in an attempt to further understand how it all comes together. My head hurts but I think I came up with some answers to some of my questions. By use of the recreational surveys - last undertaken in 2013 in relation to the document, the entire recreational catch for the area of geographic distribution in Queensland was estimated to be 55625 individual fish with a nominal weight of 1.47kg giving a recreational estimate take of roughly 82 tonnes. If you break that down into the current day limits of 4 fish per person it works out to 13906 recreational bag outs for the year. Further division sees a figure of 38 bag outs per day - for the entire geographic range of snapper in Queensland. (Matthew if you are still following - did I get that right??) . Can't comment on others opinions but that certainly sounds plausible - possibly even light on. Sure we don't fish every day and some days are unfishable but there is always a retiree or someone on holidays on the water when the weather is good - let alone the numbers on a good weekend. In the last two trips alone my boat has accounted for 5. If average a trip a month over the course of a year with similar results that would have been 36 for the year given I typically fish 3 up. If my results were then taken as typical that only works back to 386 boats state wide doing the same - not a ridiculous number by any stretch of the imagination (making the assumption my maths is right.)

As to the numbers of people actually fishing - there is comments in the assessment document regarding the need to look further into the trends of boat registration as against "ocean days". It's now my understanding that models are run by the science team with a lot of different variables - there were 72 different models in this assessment. What the management team then chooses to do with that information really isn't up to the guys doing the research. Sometimes the response is science based and sometimes it's not with political pressure from all sectors playing a role.

[shakey55]

Obviously there will be less pictures on this and other sites of people’s catch


Sent from my iPhone using Ausfish forums

[Noelm]

Obviously there will be less pictures on this and other sites of people’s catch


Sent from my iPhone using Ausfish forums
Why? unless you have over your limit and say you were on your own, pictures don't mean anything, nothing wrong with posting pictures of legal size fish.

[Lovey80]

So at least you have stopped calling it a 'quota' but it's not really a 'limit' either. You don't seem to realise that it's not all about you. The impact is collective and the partication in recreational fishing is going up. As to the weather - we have always had bad weather on occassions - but boats are bigger and better now and with better comunications. Also it not really a case of 'getting it wrong' they are just monitoring the state of the fishery and responding.

PS: Why do you need 3 or 4 mates to go fishing? 1 is ideal on my boat.

boats are bigger and better with such communication advancements since the last Snapper review? Wake up to yourself.

Of course they are getting it wrong. If they got it right last time the biomass wouldn’t have dropped even further.

[billfisher]

boats are bigger and better with such communication advancements since the last Snapper review? Wake up to yourself.

Of course they are getting it wrong. If they got it right last time the biomass wouldn’t have dropped even further.

Where did I say - 'since the last review'? I mean over a longer course of time - obviously. And this make the weather less of a limit than it used to be.

And according to the discussion paper I saw, the aim of the new restrictions is to build snapper stocks up to 60% of virgin spawning biomass in five years. So it seems like a case of setting the bar higher.

PS: so are you saying that the restrictions should have been tighter earlier? Or what are you saying? Also is there really any 'right or wrong' as to how much biomass is left in the sea? It's largely a matter of opinion.

[Crunchy]

Digressing for a minute, a scientist mate of mine used to collect data on fish numbers in rivers, to do that they would section some off, poison it, then count up all the dead fish, eels etc....never could get my head around that.

[billfisher]

Digressing for a minute, a scientist mate of mine used to collect data on fish numbers in rivers, to do that they would section some off, poison it, then count up all the dead fish, eels etc....never could get my head around that.

Seems a bit fetched. Don't they just stun them temporarily with an electrical current?

[banshee]

I was in a deep sea fishing club for about ten years,it is wrong to assume everyone is capable of bagging out,that is some are only ever going to manage a feed at best.
NSW Fisheries asked for and got our catch records once while doing a creel survey.......would definitely be more accurate than boat regos(still can't get my head around that).

[scottar]

I was in a deep sea fishing club for about ten years,it is wrong to assume everyone is capable of bagging out,that is some are only ever going to manage a feed at best.
NSW Fisheries asked for and got our catch records once while doing a creel survey.......would definitely be more accurate than boat regos(still can't get my head around that).

Qld has done the creel surveys and the data from them is used along with the estimated number of fishers based on participation rates per boat rego at the time. This has been extrapolated using the rego data as one of many inputs for the calculations. If you look at the graphs for effort - they show a reduction in the number of "ocean days" so they are aware that not every boat is out there fishing - it's just that no one has wanted to pony up the money to get more accurate data. As for bagging out - it's estimated that there are 950 000 recreational fishers in the state. If they are using a catch number of only 56 000 fish it means that only 5.8 percent of the fishing population need to catch one snapper each over a 12 month period to reach that amount. If we look at it in terms of bagging out - If 1.5 percent of the fishing population bag out once for the year, that equals the entire estimated recreational take.

[beergood]

A young bloke I know about to finish school. Would like to go to uni to study environmental science. Fairdinkum.

[Lovey80]

Where did I say - 'since the last review'? I mean over a longer course of time - obviously. And this make the weather less of a limit than it used to be.

And according to the discussion paper I saw, the aim of the new restrictions is to build snapper stocks up to 60% of virgin spawning biomass in five years. So it seems like a case of setting the bar higher.

PS: so are you saying that the restrictions should have been tighter earlier? Or what are you saying? Also is there really any 'right or wrong' as to how much biomass is left in the sea? It's largely a matter of opinion.

well obviously! If the management set in place in 2013 saw a decline in the so called biomass today then the management was wrong back then. What’s to say it’s right now?

most of the people I know that fish, rarely if ever are in the ocean targeting Snapper.

[billfisher]

well obviously! If the management set in place in 2013 saw a decline in the so called biomass today then the management was wrong back then. What’s to say it’s right now?

most of the people I know that fish, rarely if ever are in the ocean targeting Snapper.


Yes you keep saying 'it was wrong back then', so 'could be wrong now'. This smacks of black and white thinking.

Sooner or later more restrictions must have a positive effect. And you have bypassed my point that they seem to be setting the bar higher now.

[Lucky_Phill]

There are so many variables when considering input data to bring about a desired outcome.

A desired outcome and an acceptable outcome are two different things, as is a perceived outcome. Science, Public and Political.

What happens in 2013 is more than likely different in 2019 and even for 2020.

As far as I know the " original bio-mass " is a stable quantity.

Changes are catch rates ( to be determined by best available information )

Weather, cycles and drought and flood all produce different outcomes.

Loss of habitat.

Human population increases. ( recreational fishers )

Demand for commercially supplied product.

Let's also not forget that to achieve a desired outcome you need a couple of things.

The Willingness of the people that have the power to do it and the funding required.

It is fair to say, most decisions are made reactive to the situation. To be proactive takes broad shoulders, thick skin and a huge set of kahunas. None of which any political party has.

I would like to know what each FQ scientist and researcher would do, if THEY had the power to implement regulations.

My wish list is simple.. roll out artificial reefs in huge numbers and undertake wild stocking...... both of which require willingness and funding.......... :(

all IMO, of course.

LP

[Noelm]

Not too sure an artificial reef increases fish stocks, there's plenty of reef/structure around (but they sure won't hurt) the only way to increase fish numbers is to take less, or add more (restocking) I am not sure how well stocked fish fare in the wild, I guess they should be no different to a "natural" fish? so that leaves take less, and "we" want no part of that. Would anyone pay for a rec license if funds raised went towards restocking (say) Snapper, better facilities and so on? or would everyone be so paranoid again that they wouldn't trust the authorities?

[scottar]

Biomass estimates compared to last time I think were fairly stable. What hasn't happened is an increase which is the desired outcome to achieve sustainability. The aim is to return to a model that indicates 40% of virgin biomass plus. It can be done easily with a total ban of a few years - Matt showed me the estimates. But due to the scientists only being a part of the process - not the ones that ultimately decide what measures will be put in place as far as management is concerned. The science team are asked to generate models using the various inputs for a host of management options - thus the fact there were 72 different ones. The people upstairs then decide which option they will run with taking into account political input from the various stakeholders representatives and fiscal considerations. That's the process as I understand it now anyway. Ultimately at times the political pressure is such that the necessary management restrictions for growth simply aren't implemented.

One of the main concerns at the moment is lack of recruitment in Moreton Bay - an important breeding ground. If you look at the graph in the assessment it has consistently dropped since 2012. This year it dropped to an average of one fish per hectare for the sampling program from what I recall of our conversation. Regardless of the reasons, it's a troubling trend. If the remaining fish aren't breeding enough and they keep getting depleted, the situation can only get worse.

[Lovey80]

That’s in Moreton bay. And that’s a serious concern. But what about on the wider reefs? What about in the deeper areas of 80m plus? Some of the ground I fish you can go hours without even seeing another boat on a glass out Saturday.

Some of the ground east of Barwon Banks and northern hards has huge shows of fish and a lot of them are in the larger size brackets. I’ve actually said it out loud with mates on board “Thank god for bag limits” because you could fill the back of your boat. Even the shallower areas off Caloundra still produce really good Snapper and I think those areas produce better numbers and larger fish than 10 years ago. Still fishing the same marks with the same basic gear we used back then also.

[banshee]

Anyone here fish Moreton Bay in the early seventies?

[scottar]

Anyone here fish Moreton Bay in the early seventies?

Not myself. I started chasing snapper regularly from the late 80's in the bay and offshore from the early 90's. No questions asked - they were a lot easier to catch with a far less sophisticated set up back then. I still on occasion have a crack at some of the reef systems we used to fish - some in particular I wouldn't have taken a legal fish off in years and when sounded over simply don't hold anywhere near the amount of life they once did - with a far better quality sounder than I had back then too.

[scottar]

That’s in Moreton bay. And that’s a serious concern. But what about on the wider reefs? What about in the deeper areas of 80m plus? Some of the ground I fish you can go hours without even seeing another boat on a glass out Saturday.

Some of the ground east of Barwon Banks and northern hards has huge shows of fish and a lot of them are in the larger size brackets. I’ve actually said it out loud with mates on board “Thank god for bag limits” because you could fill the back of your boat. Even the shallower areas off Caloundra still produce really good Snapper and I think those areas produce better numbers and larger fish than 10 years ago. Still fishing the same marks with the same basic gear we used back then also.

Have a think about your statement - if you aren't seeing boats for hours on a glass out day, you are well and truly out of the way of the general population. Years ago, not too many offshore fisho's struggled to consistently catch a feed of snapper fishing the closer in areas in the heavier populated regions. Where have those fish gone? You may not have had to change your habits but literally thousands of others have. We aren't simply talking about your local hotspot - the issue is across the entire historical geographical distribution of snapper in Queensland. Maybe, just maybe, the fish on your you-beaut marks are the last unaffected strong hold of the species and will be responsible for repopulating our coastlines - unless of course they implement localised regs and allow them to be smashed as well. Sometimes there's a bigger picture.

[Lovey80]

That’s my point though. The vast majority of the phone polls and ramp survey data is going to be taken from Recs that smash places like Moreton bay and the Gold Coast. That gets extrapolated out to show similar results for the whole distribution of QLD and wallah the whole state looks like it is heavily over fished.

I think localised regs are part of the solution. And certainly in breeding areas like Moreton bay where barotrauma isn’t an issue for Snapper there’s no doubt in my mind a 40 or 45cm MLS should be introduced. I’m guessing though that they put that into the too hard to police basket.

[scottar]

What do you think would happen if they lock up other areas but increased the bag limit in yours......hope you like crowds. Might see a few more boats on those glass out days.

[Noelm]

That’s in Moreton bay. And that’s a serious concern. But what about on the wider reefs? What about in the deeper areas of 80m plus? Some of the ground I fish you can go hours without even seeing another boat on a glass out Saturday.

Some of the ground east of Barwon Banks and northern hards has huge shows of fish and a lot of them are in the larger size brackets. I’ve actually said it out loud with mates on board “Thank god for bag limits” because you could fill the back of your boat. Even the shallower areas off Caloundra still produce really good Snapper and I think those areas produce better numbers and larger fish than 10 years ago. Still fishing the same marks with the same basic gear we used back then also.
I do agree with what you say, but, eventually these offshore reef systems loaded with fish get hit too, it's just how we work, no fish in close, go wider, then wider again, exactly that happened here with the "deep droppers" only a few years ago, Blue Eye and other deep water fish were pro catch only, now it's common to see a dozen trailer boats on the deep grounds, with electric reels, the stocks of Gemfish took a hiding, then boat limits were introduced, and stocks seem to be going OK, you can get plenty of big ones, Blue Eye and Hapuka are not so easy to find, but they are there.

[Ducksnutz]

Interesting.......Not saying it directly links with this thread but worth a read.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-19/quarter-of-commercial-fishing-lines-end-up-as-ocean-rubbish/11524688 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-19/quarter-of-commercial-fishing-lines-end-up-as-ocean-rubbish/11524688)

[banshee]

Not too sure an artificial reef increases fish stocks, there's plenty of reef/structure around (but they sure won't hurt) the only way to increase fish numbers is to take less, or add more (restocking) I am not sure how well stocked fish fare in the wild, I guess they should be no different to a "natural" fish? so that leaves take less, and "we" want no part of that. Would anyone pay for a rec license if funds raised went towards restocking (say) Snapper, better facilities and so on? or would everyone be so paranoid again that they wouldn't trust the authorities?

The only gripe I have with our (nsw) set up is that we stocked a shit load of Mulloway,paid for out of the rec trust fund,into the Richmond so they could swim into a commercial net.

[Noelm]

How big were these Mulloway when release to swim into the net?

[banshee]

How big were these Mulloway when release to swim into the net?

Fingerlings,not saying these are destined for immediate destruction but the netters in the Richmond have been known to net two tonne in a night.......They've even been seen trying to hound schools out of the rec haven into nets set up just off the haven boundary.I would not support restocking of any commercially sort after species with rec money.

[Lucky_Phill]

The only gripe I have with our (nsw) set up is that we stocked a shit load of Mulloway,paid for out of the rec trust fund,into the Richmond so they could swim into a commercial net.

And this is yet another example why I oppose a Rec fishing licence in Qld.

LP

[Noelm]

Fingerlings,not saying these are destined for immediate destruction but the netters in the Richmond have been known to net two tonne in a night.......They've even been seen trying to hound schools out of the rec haven into nets set up just off the haven boundary.I would not support restocking of any commercially sort after species with rec money.
Sounds more like what someone was told that someone heard in the pub.

[Lovey80]

What do you think would happen if they lock up other areas but increased the bag limit in yours......hope you like crowds. Might see a few more boats on those glass out days.

That line of thinking was certainly dismissed when we brought it up concerning green zones in Moreton Bay. I didn’t see Fisheries protesting the EPA’s green zones plan at the time.

Im not even suggesting that they lock areas like Moreton bay up. But management arrangements such as changes in MLS for area specific areas is a must as the shallows of MB negate the argument of post capture mortality to a large degree. Those measures would only be temporarily detrimental to recreational fishermen for a few years in the most heavily fished area until those smaller fish hit 40 or 45cm. Then things can go back to normal except that now we have a larger percentage of the biomass in that area hitting a larger size before being caught. There are 3-4-5 years of extra recruitment before fish are taken. The number of larger models adding to recruitment increases (though nothing has really been done to scientifically test if this is an issue in Snapper)

What i I am saying though is that these surveys and how Fisheries collects their recreational data is terrible. Mathew even admitted this in his summary of the Biomass assessment. If 90% of boat ramp surveys and phone polls are coming from people that fish a heavily fished area such as MB and the Gold Coast then use that data to extrapolate out for the rest of the QLD fishery then of course average sizes and catch rates are going to drop and show a much bleaker picture of the fishery.

[Think of it this way. Imagine we banned fishing in half of the Barra dams for a decade. Then did a biomass assessment of just the dams that are fished and then doubled it. Would that be a fair indicator of the total biomass of barramundi in enclosed impoundments? Let’s take that further. Let’s assume that Barra does breed in fresh water and then give fishing licences at a ratio of 1:10 for half the dams but still did the biomass assessment based off of the data taken from the dams that had 10 times the fishermen. Would that be a fair assessment of the impoundment Barra biomass?]

Those same MLS regulations aren’t going to help the biomass in areas that are in deep water. You are better off allowing Recs to take their bag of 35cm and above fish as a way of encouraging them not to upgrade. Once they have their 4 fish per person they can move on to other ground that isn’t Snapper. Telling them they can only have 8 total per boat is a red flag to a bull to maximise the total KG within that 8 fish. Ie what I said earlier about making sure all 8 fish on board are as big as they can take within the regulations. That’s going to be a lot of dead fish due to barotrauma.

Above all of that is the importance of making Snapper/Pearly/Trag or any other species that needs decent data on it, mandatory reporting for recreationals. With that is a stable system in place throughout the monitoring period to accurately assess catches in the fishery. No point bringing it in a year or four after the last spate of regulations changes then using some BS monte-Carlo or what ever model to predict how recruitment was to account for the changes in regulations throughout the time period.

[banshee]

And this is yet another example why I oppose a Rec fishing licence in Qld.

LP

I personally think the rec fishing licence is probably the best thing that has ever happened for NSW anglers.I believe our model is unique in as much as all the monies raised barring 10% for administration is spent on the fishery by us and not funnelled into consolidated revenue.We have a vested interest in the fishery which in turn makes us genuine stakeholders,if there is a study we have input as to who is consulted,likewise,when the bill for said study turns up we pay our share......No one flicks us a bone and tells us to piss off,if bad decisions are made with this money we have no one to blame but our selves.

[efc]

Are there any stats on the percentage of commercially caught fish consumed?

[banshee]

Sounds more like what someone was told that someone heard in the pub.

yeah probably.

[scottar]

That line of thinking was certainly dismissed when we brought it up concerning green zones in Moreton Bay. I didn’t see Fisheries protesting the EPA’s green zones plan at the time.

Im not even suggesting that they lock areas like Moreton bay up. But management arrangements such as changes in MLS for area specific areas is a must as the shallows of MB negate the argument of post capture mortality to a large degree. Those measures would only be temporarily detrimental to recreational fishermen for a few years in the most heavily fished area until those smaller fish hit 40 or 45cm. Then things can go back to normal except that now we have a larger percentage of the biomass in that area hitting a larger size before being caught. There are 3-4-5 years of extra recruitment before fish are taken. The number of larger models adding to recruitment increases (though nothing has really been done to scientifically test if this is an issue in Snapper)

What i I am saying though is that these surveys and how Fisheries collects their recreational data is terrible. Mathew even admitted this in his summary of the Biomass assessment. If 90% of boat ramp surveys and phone polls are coming from people that fish a heavily fished area such as MB and the Gold Coast then use that data to extrapolate out for the rest of the QLD fishery then of course average sizes and catch rates are going to drop and show a much bleaker picture of the fishery.

[Think of it this way. Imagine we banned fishing in half of the Barra dams for a decade. Then did a biomass assessment of just the dams that are fished and then doubled it. Would that be a fair indicator of the total biomass of barramundi in enclosed impoundments? Let’s take that further. Let’s assume that Barra does breed in fresh water and then give fishing licences at a ratio of 1:10 for half the dams but still did the biomass assessment based off of the data taken from the dams that had 10 times the fishermen. Would that be a fair assessment of the impoundment Barra biomass?]

Those same MLS regulations aren’t going to help the biomass in areas that are in deep water. You are better off allowing Recs to take their bag of 35cm and above fish as a way of encouraging them not to upgrade. Once they have their 4 fish per person they can move on to other ground that isn’t Snapper. Telling them they can only have 8 total per boat is a red flag to a bull to maximise the total KG within that 8 fish. Ie what I said earlier about making sure all 8 fish on board are as big as they can take within the regulations. That’s going to be a lot of dead fish due to barotrauma.

Above all of that is the importance of making Snapper/Pearly/Trag or any other species that needs decent data on it, mandatory reporting for recreationals. With that is a stable system in place throughout the monitoring period to accurately assess catches in the fishery. No point bringing it in a year or four after the last spate of regulations changes then using some BS monte-Carlo or what ever model to predict how recruitment was to account for the changes in regulations throughout the time period.

Your example has a flaw. By using dams where fish populations are not free to move and intermingle you have effectively created separate genetic stocks - thus requiring separate management . We are dealing with a single genetic stock. Where are the nursery zones for the offshore schools? Moreton Bay? As to MLS increases - the models were run - Matthew showed them to me. There was an improvement but not quick enough obviously for the management team to select that as a preferred option. The best options were reduction in fishing mortality - the less fish killed every year the quicker the stocks recovered. They have an end game - the trick is getting there as quickly as possible without creating too much havoc I guess. I agree we need better catch data - but we will have to pay for it. Cold hard facts - it costs money and on the list of important shit government deals with - catch reporting is way down the list. If we want it, we need to start lobbying people like Sunfish and the like and probably get serious about a license as a way to raise the money. As to the mindset - guess that comes down to the individual. I know I passed the comment initially, but after sitting down and going through things with someone that has actually done a fair bit of research my attitude has changed.

[Lovey80]

Your example has a flaw. By using dams where fish populations are not free to move and intermingle you have effectively created separate genetic stocks - thus requiring separate management . We are dealing with a single genetic stock. Where are the nursery zones for the offshore schools? Moreton Bay? As to MLS increases - the models were run - Matthew showed them to me. There was an improvement but not quick enough obviously for the management team to select that as a preferred option. The best options were reduction in fishing mortality - the less fish killed every year the quicker the stocks recovered. They have an end game - the trick is getting there as quickly as possible without creating too much havoc I guess. I agree we need better catch data - but we will have to pay for it. Cold hard facts - it costs money and on the list of important shit government deals with - catch reporting is way down the list. If we want it, we need to start lobbying people like Sunfish and the like and probably get serious about a license as a way to raise the money. As to the mindset - guess that comes down to the individual. I know I passed the comment initially, but after sitting down and going through things with someone that has actually done a fair bit of research my attitude has changed.

My example doesn’t have a flaw because you focused on the wrong part of my point. The vast majority of the Rec Data is coming from Recs that mainly hit Moreton bay and the GC. Those areas have area specific problems. Moreton bay and the Gold Coast are easily the most heavily fished areas of the state. So taking that data and extrapolating it to represent the whole biomass is going to show a far bleaker picture than is really the case.

The Pro Data showed again that the biomass was stable. Those people won’t be hitting the same areas as the vast majority of Recs and Gold Coast charter operators do. That tells me that there probably is biomass issues in MB and GC and I’m not disputing that. But outside of that, where is the evidence to suggest there’s any real issue at all?

I bet the models didn’t show MLS increases for just MB area?

After the last RRFF review it was recommended by the rec sector and FQ that more reliable data was needed. Even this review states that. Yet these guys are forced to use some mathematic model to make up for that huge short fall on the input side and are having to make some pretty big assumptions.

Why did we all all of a sudden back in 2012 begin to focus so heavily on “virgin biomass”???

[Dirtyfuzz]

So I just assumed that the snapper closure for 1 month applied to everyone however just reading the rules and it seems the charter and commercial are exempt, is this true, sorry if this has been mentioned earlier!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aussie123]

So I just assumed that the snapper closure for 1 month applied to everyone however just reading the rules and it seems the charter and commercial are exempt, is this true, sorry if this has been mentioned earlier!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Charter only are exempt. the pros have the closure period the same as the recs now.

[Dirtyfuzz]

I read that charter companies are exempt from the boat limit however no mention of seasonal closure applying to the charter or commercial sector


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[scottar]

As a charter boat patron you are still a recreational angler - the dropping of the extended charter bag limit exemption is in the rec section on DAF's website. The only thing that doesn't apply is the boat limit. The closure is for everyone.

[bluefin59]

Yep charter operators are still in negotiations with the government about some sort of compensation for the closure period as it’s the peak snapper chasing time for them , I believe some change to the rules may come before then though . Matt

[Lovey80]

If the picture is so bleak that harsh measures are needed then they have to be for all. I doubt we will have a lobby group negotiating on behalf of Recs for compensation.

[bluefin59]

If the picture is so bleak that harsh measures are needed then they have to be for all. I doubt we will have a lobby group negotiating on behalf of Recs for compensation.

Not quit the same as a charter operator who fishes for a living I’m afraid , but good try . Matt

[Lovey80]

Not quit the same as a charter operator who fishes for a living I’m afraid , but good try . Matt

Either the fishery is in such dire straits that everyone needs to take a haircut or it’s not. The recreational stake holders invest orders or magnitude more than charter stake holders to catch Snapper. Many Recs spend the vast majority of their disposable income on fishing.

[bluefin59]

Either the fishery is in such dire straits that everyone needs to take a haircut or it’s not. The recreational stake holders invest orders or magnitude more than charter stake holders to catch Snapper. Many Recs spend the vast majority of their disposable income on fishing.

Hmmm I see it totally different to that, a charter operator will continue to work during the shutdown period but a lot more fish will be wasted as they wil just throw them back until they catch something for the customers they can keep . As for rec anglers investing a majority of their income in fishing its highly doubtful that that is the case unlike charter operators who do this for a living , there is going to be change to these rules I think you will find as it just won’t work for everyone at this stage . Matt

[Noelm]

Don't pro anglers catch fish for a living? it's pretty much the same thing, I know there has to be exemptions at times, but, if things need to be done, then it's done across the board, charter operators can just as easily fish for (say) Flathead for a "feed" for their customers.

[Stressless]

https://www.pir.sa.gov.au/fishing/community_engagement/snapper_management_review_2019?fbclid=IwAR0brtgUnC CfemJ7if471n_G-ttIAleBC-B9JoW0mSrlBwrH0sFVpsmLK9A

[scottar]

Yep. Brace yourselves.

[Dignity]

As a charter boat patron you are still a recreational angler - the dropping of the extended charter bag limit exemption is in the rec section on DAF's website. The only thing that doesn't apply is the boat limit. The closure is for everyone.

I thought that the "extended charter" of more than 1 week rule wasn't scrapped or being still debated. There's been so much discussion around these issues that I've lost track. The interesting thing is that about a week ago I checked the DAF site on fish limits as i wanted to update my charts (includes photos so my friends can look it up themselves) and it still had a few of the new limits missing.

[Lovey80]

Well even in the dire straits that SA is in, at least they are putting in a method to show exactly how many Snapper the Rec sector are taking. Piss poor from our mob.

[scottar]

Wonder what the rec tags will cost?