Ping Waldo or other pro fishers

[bidkev]

Waldo, I understand that TED's are mandatory for the scallop fishers. Is this so for other methods of trawling? What is your experience as to how many pros use TED'd or BRD's especially in conjunction together? Is there significant knot slip in square mesh cod ends and has this deterred pros from using them?

TIA

kev

Before you point your fingers be sure your hands are clean.

[revs57]

Hi Kev,

I don't quite get what you're asking? I'll see you tomorrow morning around 10ish...have the kettle on!!!! ;)

Rhys

[bidkev]

Hi Kev,

I don't quite get what you're asking? #I'll see you tomorrow morning around 10ish...have the kettle on!!!! ;)

Rhys

OK Rhys. I'm trying to find out just how many trawler operators use By-catch Reduction Devices in conjunction with Turtle Exclusion Devices.

This in regards to the scallop fishery

"Results
Bycatch
The average catch rate for total bycatch (i.e., all bycatch including monsters)
from the standard codend was 45.20kg per two nautical mile trawl (Figure 3).
When the square mesh codend was used the catch rate was reduced by 29%
to 32.29kg per two nautical mile trawl. The total bycatch catch rate from the
codend with a TED only was 18.00kg per two nautical mile trawl - a reduction
of 60% when compared to the standard codend. Furthermore, when the
square mesh codend was used in conjunction with a TED, the total bycatch
catch rate was 9.80kg - a reduction of 78% compared to the standard codend.
Statistical tests indicated that the difference between codend types was highly
significant – that is, they were not just due to chance."

TED's and BRD's are now compulsory in the scallop fishery but no research so far (by me) has found it to be mandatory for the prawn trawling fishery. It may well be that it is so, I just haven't uncovered the legislation yet. If it isn't, then why not, considering the huge reduction in by catch?

This also

"For example, scallop landings for the period 1988 to 1999 averaged 1,100
tonnes of meat per year (Williams, 2002), which equates to approximately
5,500 tonnes of unshucked scallops per year. Measurements of bycatch
obtained from commercial scallop fisherman over the last two years indicate
that for every 1kg of unshucked commercial size scallop caught in a standard
net (that is a net with no TED and no BRD) there is about 2.5 kg bycatch.
This suggests that during the period 1988-1999 there was about 13,750
tonnes of bycatch produced by the scallop fishery each year. The results
from the charter suggest that if trawler operators used the square mesh
codend in conjunction with an efficient TED, bycatch in the scallop fishery
could be reduced by about 78% (10, 725 tonnes) to approximately 2,981
tonnes per year, with no loss of commercial size scallop."

That's a *huge* reduction in by-catch which (IMHO) should be legislated for translating across the whole pro fishing fleet.

kev

A real patriot is someone who gets a parking ticket and rejoices that the system works.

[revs57]

Mate they are some scarey figures...i'd have to agree with you...if this introduced technology reduces by-catch so drastically while not affecting catch rate...then why is it not leglislated???

Really appreciating the work you're putting into this one mate...It is so vitally important that someone picks it up. In fact possibly more important than other limitations to bag, size and exclusion zones.

Hope someone is listening that can really make some changes to the wya things are

cheers and thanks again for your efforts

Rhys

[flipper]

Good info Kingtin.
Makes you wonder why these devices aren't mandatory.
Where's Waldo? :-?

[bidkev]

Good info Kingtin.
Makes you wonder why these devices aren't mandatory.
Where's Waldo? :-?

I think he's on holiday............it may have been him that mentioned that he was going to NZ for two weeks.

kev


How long a minute is depends on what side of the bathroom door you're on.

[blaze]

Kev
you havnt been on the job long and have found some startling results.
There is a lot in the proverb
that one man can make a difference
because of the info that you have sought there is now a lot more educated people
congrats on your efforts
cheers
blaze

[Jono_SS]

they are mandatory/legislated in Queensland. this has happened in the last 5-7 years or so....but there are other people on here that know more accurately.

how old were the results that you presented Kev?

[bidkev]

they are mandatory/legislated in Queensland. this has happened in the last 5-7 years or so....but there are other people on here that know more accurately.

how old were the results that you presented Kev?

The Qld scallop industry research was from Oct 2002. The data I've collected so far indicates that Turtle Excluding Devices are mandatory but I can't find anything yet that states that BRD's are mandatory. I can find practically nothing on the licencing or operating legalities of estuary and creek trawling via the web, but am writing to the DPI to try and obtain more info.

This para would indicate that TED's alone are of no use in sparing "nursery" fish or smaller species

"While the TED was effective at removing large species of bycatch it was not
very effective at reducing the smaller animals. The square mesh codend,
however, was very effective at reducing the small species (i.e., it reduced the
“bycatch excluding monsters” by 53%). Together the two devices
(TED+square mesh codend) complemented one another and were very
effective, resulting in a 78% overall reduction in bycatch."

There has been much anecdotal evidence on this site of fish kills in the Pine and Logan after trawling operations, it is this that I am trying to get to the bottom of at this particular time. The data I've collected so far on other fisheries would help validate the case for TED's and BRD's to be mandatory on *all* trawlers if this is not yet the case.

kev

How many of you believe in telekinesis? Raise MY hand!

[bidkev]

*all*[/b] trawlers if this is not yet the case.

kev



Meant to add, if they *are* mandatory, then how come there's so much anecdotal evidence of dead fish in the rivers after a trawl, are these "small operators" exempt, and if so, why with so much conclusive evidence that by-catch can be considerably reduced? That is what I am trying to find out.

kev

Humans are interesting creatures, when given everything they need, they can't live through
hardships.But when given very little they surpass every hardship.

[webby]

BRD's are compulsory on all trawlers, been through this whole affair in another post.
There is no know device available or know to man that is going to stop bycatch, Brd's only stop the larger speices from ending up in the codend, but on occassions even they will be caught in the codend .
regards

[bidkev]

BRD's are compulsory on all trawlers, been through this whole affair in another post.
There is no know device available or know to man that is going to stop bycatch, Brd's only stop the larger speices from ending up in the codend, but on occassions even they will be caught in the codend .
regards

Missed the other post Webby.

Another few hours trawling the net (no pun intended) ;D and it seems the matter is not all that simple. There are 5 recognised BRD's and yes, my new data confirms what you say about them being compulsory, although to date, I have found no indication that the DPI has legislated for any particular one other than TED's

Square mesh cod end.
Square mesh panel.
Fisheye.
Bigeye.
Radial escape section

The figures in the previous post for the square mesh cod end are impressive but in practice, they are useless if a trawler is using one of the other 4 BRD's.

eg DPI

"V-Cut BRD
The V- Cut BRD is not a new device. It has been widely used in the shallow water eastern king prawn fishery in southern Queensland and northern New South Wales. However, before this year the extent to which the device worked had not been recorded. The V-Cut BRD is basically a standard bell cod end with a “V” cut in the cod end forward of the bell. The cut leaves a flap in the meshes which opens and closes allowing finfish to escape. The V-Cut BRD was intended to be trialled in the shallow water eastern king prawn grounds to the east of Fraser Island. Due to the weather at the time this was not possible and the trial was undertaken in Hervey Bay.

The trial took place onboard the “C-King” during May this year. 30 shots were completed over 7 nights targeting tiger, endeavour and blue leg king prawns. The results for the bycatch catch rates are shown in Figure 1. The V – Cut BRD resulted in an average bycatch reduction of 16%. The difference in bycatch catch rates between the two BRD types is far greater than the natural variation. This means that the reduction was caused by the BRD and not by any random factors affecting the bycatch. The natural variation in prawn catch rates was greater than the difference between the two nets. This is a good indication that there was no loss of prawns caused by the V – Cut BRD. In fact over the 30 shots, the difference between the net with the BRD and the standard net was only 750grams of prawns. The reductions in bycatch for this trial are expected to be at the low end of the reductions achievable with this BRD. Industry members using this device have stated that the device is very effective at excluding stout whiting and other stronger swimming finfish. Due to the logistics of the survey it was not possible to test the device in areas with large numbers of these fish."

Me:

Now if the V-cut BRD is so efficient in regard to minimal loss of prawn then if the skipper takes into consideration that sorting of by catch is less important than potential loss of prawn catch, by the use of other BRD's, then is it likely that he will use this method to maximise his prawn catch at the expense of by-catch reduction.

As can be seen, by catch reduction in V-cut pales in comparison to Square mesh cod-end.

It appears to me that this matter is not so simple as it seems. Having a choice of one of 5 BRD's is always going to be to the benefit of the skipper as opposed to minimising by-catch ie Is he is more likely to use the one that results in less loss of targetted species with little concern for by-catch? If there is legislation mandating for use of BRD, why then give skippers a choice when one method is far superior to another. Why not legislate for the most efficient in regard to by-catch reduction?

kev

The real measure of your wealth is how much you'd be worth if you lost all your money.

[bidkev]

This just obtained further from the DPI, which is from the research into the effectiveness of BRD's:

"The weight of the bycatch weight is generally several times (i.e. 5 to 10 times) that of the targeted catch of prawns and scallops".

Now I find that to be horrific, given the total weight of targetted catch per annum. If even a minority of trawlers opted for the V-cut with it's reduction of by-catch verified at only 16% then that is still a lot of by-catch and just what is the mortality of that by'catch? To date, there appears to be little research done in Qld regarding mortality rate of by-catch but if I looked further afield at similar fisheries then I may be able to eventually obtain some figures.

It just seems strange at this point, given that there are better excluding devices such as the Square mesh cod-end, that this particular device isn't compulsory?

kev

Quality is presence of value and not absence of mistake.

[rando]

Waldo and Co may have bitten off more than they can chew, it looks like the ausfishers are going to get to the FACTS of this bycatch debate .
Well done Kev keep the info coming.
Kind regards
rando
PS
Before you point your finger make sure your hands are clean (I hope thats not one of yours Kev)
R

[wiseguy67]

"Humans are interesting creatures, when given everything they need, they can't live through hardships.
But when given very little they surpass every hardship."

Firstly~ Kev good on ya for searching and sharing.
Secondly~ the little proverbs you add to all your posts are good but this one is spot on. Go to any Third world country and you will see it first-hand.

In 2002 I worked in Exmouth WA with a fleet of 12 prawn trawlers and TEDs were used by all as the high numbers of turtles.
Not sure if it was the law or just to avoid dealing with them.

Cheers,
Gerard

[Louis]

Well done Kev.

You've obviously put in some time researching this.






Louis

[bidkev]

Waldo and Co may have bitten off more than they can chew, it looks like the ausfishers are going to get to the FACTS of this bycatch debate .
Well done Kev keep the info coming.
Kind regards
rando
PS
Before you point your finger make sure your hands are clean (I hope thats not one of yours Kev)
R


No rando, it's a chinese proverb but applicable in this case. There are so many variables that yes, we can point the finger, but I'm not, at this stage, convinced that some in the industry are deliberately taking the easy option.

I believe that waldo and some other pros are sincere in thinking that they are doing all they can do to reduce by-catch but by-catch research is pretty thin on the ground so there is not much indication that the methods that have been researched and waldo and others have adopted are the best.

For example, my research so far indicates that all research has been aimed at otter trawling as the pulling of two nets allows one to be tested without BRD's and one with, and that way comparable conclusions can be drawn. Beam trawlers receive less attention and I can of yet, find no research done on *their* by-catch reduction. I may have look for research done in similar cofisheries in other countries.

To further complicate matters, I believe that another two BRD's are being introduced before the end of the year, so that will mean a choice of 7. Can the fishery be trusted to accept the most effective one and how do we decide which is the most effective one if there is not too much research done on them?

kev

I believe the time we really look big in a child's eyes is when we go to them and apologize for our
mistakes and we say, 'I was wrong. Will you forgive me?'

[nulla]

Hi kingtin

Some more info on trawl bycatch has been posted on

http://www.ausfish.com.au/cgi-ausfish/yabb2/YaBB.cgi?num=1142047116;start=all

There is some evidence of fish survival rates of 2%

The large % reduction in bycatch you have mentioned is for the SCALLOP trawl sector - not the prawn trawl sector. While there have been advances in this area, nothing as dramatic as with scallops.

See also

http://www.ausfish.com.au/cgi-ausfish/yabb2/YaBB.cgi?num=1142788387;start=all

for more trawl bycatch info

[bidkev]

Thanks for that nulla.

I used the scallop research as that is the most recent (published). I used it merely to illustrate how by-catch can be reduced in one particular sector and how we must strive to improve it in the others.

kev

I don't believe you can do today's job with yesterday's methods and be in business tomorrow.

[fisher28]

bycatch reduction devices are definately must have on beamies,big fines are are result of not having one or an incorrectly fitted device.to the best of my knowledge tutrtle excluders are not a must but we use jelly racks.these racks are idententical to teds except for much closer bar spacings,50mm centres from memory,anything bigger than that gets shot out.the most common excluders we use are the fisheye then the bigeye.square mesh codends are not much use to us because we catch greasies for the bait market.one of the unis did a study on us approx 5 years ago before the fish excluders became mandatory.two important things to remember are that we tow a bar in front of our net towed by wire or chain bridles which scare the fish away and the prawns and fish run in different depths,not just all mixed in together in varied depths.

[waldo35]

where waldo... mm back again.... it seems odd top me that an industry that [recco fishing] that operates in an unregulated and unlicensed manner vieing for the use of the same resources as we pay for should have the gall to drag up facts and figures on bycatch to try and prove ur point. what it proves to me is that we are very aware of these issues and have been working for 15 yrs now to address these issues. recently i trialled a new type of bycatch redustion device which showed an initial result of 66% exclusion of bycatch . to point fingewrs and say this should be legilslated or that shud be legislated is a moot point it already has. im not getting on this site dragging out research on how much harvest is being done by ur industry in an uncontrolled/unregulated/unlicensed manner. until the recco industry can quantify what ur actual harvest per yr is empirically thru log books [ not phone survey estimates] until the recreational industry can account for effort creep thru gps,plotters sounders and all the electronic equipment that allows u to target specific areas [ in ur 10s of thousands] until u guys can account for the effort creep resulting from 50 thou people a yr moving to s e qld for the 'seachange' i dont think u guys have a leg to stand on. we know what our problems are and with cooperation from gov we are working to minimise our impact. ur industry is a chicken little bloating andrunning out of control every yr placing more and more pressure on the same resource. sumone made the comment bout pointing fingers and dirty hands well back at u.

[bidkev]

where waldo... mm back again.... it seems odd top me that an industry that [recco fishing] that operates in an unregulated and unlicensed manner vieing for the use of the same resources as we pay for should have the gall to drag up facts and figures on bycatch to try and prove ur point. what it proves to me is that we are very aware of these issues and have been working for 15 yrs now to address these issues. recently i trialled a new type of bycatch redustion device which showed an initial result of 66% exclusion of bycatch . to point fingewrs and say this should be legilslated or that shud be legislated is a moot point it already has. im not getting on this site dragging out research on how much harvest is being done by ur industry in an uncontrolled/unregulated/unlicensed manner. until the recco industry can quantify what ur actual harvest per yr is empirically thru log books [ not phone survey estimates] until the recreational industry can account for effort creep thru gps,plotters sounders and all the electronic equipment that allows u to target specific areas [ in ur 10s of thousands] until u guys can account for the effort creep resulting from 50 thou people a yr moving to s e qld for the 'seachange' i dont think u guys have a leg to stand on. we know what our problems are and with cooperation from gov we are working to minimise our impact. ur industry is a chicken little bloating andrunning out of control every yr placing more and more pressure on the same resource. sumone made the comment bout pointing fingers and dirty hands well back at u.


Hi Waldo,

Mate, see the thread on general page entitled By-catch/ trawling. I'm attempting to "not point the finger" but illustrate what is being done, and ascertain as to whether more should be done, to protect the fishery. There was considerable concern voiced on this site and in the media regarding the kill on the Sunny. Also the trawling effort in the Pine and Logan is of great concern to reccos and the general public alike.

There is considerable anecdotal evidence regarding many dead herring, mullet and whiting in the Pine and also issues regarding the disturbal of the bed when trawling is underway. We all know that herring, once handled, are as good as dead, these being a considerable constituent of the food chain. Concern was also voiced as to the number of licences operating in such a small fishing area as the Pine.

I am re-assured through this research, that Fisheries are doing as much possible at this time (via budgetary constraints) to eliminate by-catch and arrive at a consensus on what is "sustainable fishing practice".

I am also aware of your concerns regarding logging of rec fisher's catches and the legislation regarding pros logging. In reality, neither is of much use unless it is verifiable and proven to be honest, and my current research leads me to believe that neither are a reliable indicator of the state of the fishery.

This from the WWF dated 2003. I am not aware that anything has changed since then, but would welcome any current info:

"The QFS report acknowledges that there are currently no processes in place to validate catch
and effort information provided through the logbook program; therefore, the degree of
reliability of commercial catch and effort data through the logbook program is unknown.

Individual species need to be dealt with separately when developing estimates of removals
from commercial, recreational and indigenous fishing, and when undertaking stock
assessments and identifying species catch levels. It is unfortunate therefore that the report
tends to lump together groups of species. For example, references are made to tiger prawns
when in fact there are three species of tiger prawns caught and landed by the ECOTF: the
brown tiger (Penaeus esculentus), the grooved tiger (Penaeus semisulcatus) and the relatively
rare giant tiger (or leader) prawn (Penaeus monodon). Further, references are made to
endeavour prawns when there are two species of endeavour prawns landed by the fishery: the
true or blue endeavour (Metapenaeus endeavouri) and the false or red endeavour"
(Metapenaeus ensis)

And this from the same source which I am quite happy to publish if even to show that I am not operating from a one-sided viewpoint:

"In addition, the lack of a recreational fishing licensing regime in Queensland seriously
hampers the capacity of the QFS to monitor recreational fishing catch and effort."

I haven't really got time to handle two thread on this Waldo, so I am going to move this response over to the general page. Your input is valued and you may have a better chance at putting your point across over there. Hope this sits well with you

kev

[waldo35]

and again kev thanks for ur willingness to research and present alternative views [ re recco licensing etc] much more refreshing than the constant regurgitation of 'anecdotal evidence' supporting the green aganda that is hell bent on removing not only my livelyhood but ur recreation. chz waldo