9 Day closures

[devocean]

Looking for information and feedback on the 9 day closures for a teaching unit. As no other polls are available thought this forum would be a good place to get some real infor. I realise a number of members are not effected by the closures but it will only be a matter of time before you will get the chop as well. So please feel free to have a say anyway.

[Dr_Dan]

Think that they are a good idea. If it gives the fish a chance to spawn, i'm all for it. After all, it's only 9 days that you cant get out for a fish. If you really need to, chase something else.

[kc]

I have to have a bit of a spew about the closures...not in concept but in practise.

I for 1 applaude the barra closed season..it works & we can still go fishing, just release any barra caught.

As to reef fin fish.....and being more specific...coral trout. The fish the closures are suppossed to be about.

1.If the green zones had been based on sceince rather than retoric they would have been located to protect known agregation sites.

2. The one paper (Mapson et al) on trout aggregations determines that only 6 to 10% of trout actually attend a spawning aggregation.

3. Coral trout are harvested (maybe wrong word) (Combined recreational & commercial catch) at a rate of less than 4% of available biomass each year (Ayling et al) and have the breeding dynamics to support harvest in excess of 25% of biomass each year....to whit. Coral trout are not under any pressure from overfishing..This has been one of the great myths of the GBR debate. Aylings studies over 14 years of research on fished and unfished reefs show no statistical differences and in fact support a position that the fishing pressure which does occur on the GBR is having an effect of actually slightly increasing coral trout density (large fish being taken are all highly territorial and highly predatory male fish & higer spawning recruitment occurs as a result of less of these big fish on fished reefs)

4. Recreational bag limits have been tightened and strict catch quotos on commercial fishers put in place by Qld Government to reduce take of this species already this year which should reduce combined recreational and commercial catch back to less than 3% of available biomass each year. So for every 100 adult trout, they need to produce just 3 surviving offspring to replace what is being taken (& their potential is 40 to 50).

5. Take the poor old tackle shop owner who has a business split (say) 50/50% reef and estuary fishers. His business is halved for 10 days in October & then when barra season closes for Nov & Dec his business is totally stuffed for 2 by 10 day blocks.....pretty tough on them.


IF a fish stock is under pressure, like the barra was, and sceince could show that fish aggregated to spawn and were being targetted by open slather recreational and commercial pressure, then closures are a great management tool. There would be a lot more sceince to support closing the pin and caloundra during the winter to protect the bream spawning.

Here we have a fish which is not under pressure, does not aggregate in large numbers, is strictly controlled by recreational bag limits and commecial catch quotas (not to mention weather and distance considerations) then what is served by closures other than screwing a few hard working small busineses and allowing politicians to bleat to green tinged ears about what a great job they are doing??

Having been a bit burnt by the whole process of closures and management plans up here this all smells of political expediency and has bugger all sceintific merit. It is a closure for closures sake and not closures for any valid reason.

Did you guys know that an "experimental" deep trawl fishery was being trailed in the gulf targetting spawning aggregations of mangrove jack and fingermark that is taking tonnes at a time?? Stopping this disgrace would be a meaningful closure. No catch quotas here...just go for your bloody life boys because no one on cape york votes!!

Here endeth the spew

KC

[Mick]

Yeah, I agree Doc. I went fishing during the first 9 day closure and the wierdest thing happened. We caught at least one dozen gold spot cod off the one spot (all released). The cod were all MASSIVE! Most weighed more than the scales could handle which was 30kg. Big gold spot do not school unless spawning. I would hate to think what sort of dent in the population of cod I would have made if I had kept them all. They were obviously there breeding.
Bottom line is that it should definately be closed to everyone. I think the fisheries have got this one right. I say let the fish get their rocks off in peace.

p.s I went spearing during the first closure (to be more selective) and it nearly killed me watching all the Coral Trout knowing I can't shoot em. There were hundreds of the buggers!

[Leo_N.]

It is pretty well established in world fisheries that sustainable harvesting of a species relies on preservation of spawning aggregations.

Aside from scientific evidence you also have to take into account people's attitudes to fishing. Many recreational fishermen know that they will find large numbers of coral trout in certain areas at this time of year around the new moon. I know several people who have concentrated their fishing activities at these times, because they can be assured of 'bagging out'. This not only removes spawners from the population at a critical time, but also increases the net harvesting effort.

I feel for the tackle shop owners, and others that are affected, but I feel more for the potential for the longer term sustainability of the reef fishery. Remember that many of the now collapsed fisheries were once thought to be limitless resources, and a proactive approach may be what is required to preserve this fishery.

[nulla]

Targetting of spawning aggregations in itself is not necessarily going to lead to the collapse of a fishery.A good example of this is the Shark Bay snapper fishery off Western Australia.

This is a line fishery largely based on targetting spawning aggregations and controlled by quota. The snapper have been targetted since the turn of the twentieth century. Catch data is available from the 1950s onwards The catch is around 500 tonnes - the vast majority of which comes from spawning agregations, and there is no sign of any problem within this fishery.

Having a spawning closure for the sake of having a closure is just a quick fix to a problem that has not been researched and may not even exist. This will guarantee a successful solution every time. If the problem didn't exist in the first place you can claim credit for what a wonderful job you have done - perfect

[Leo_N.]

Exactly Nulla, it will guarantee a successful solution in the absence of enough data, so it has to be a good idea in my books.

[kc]

Hi Leo,

Maybe I read Nullas post a bit different but isn't it like banning tourism on the moon...to protect its fragile environment??

If there is hard evidence to suggest that there is no problem...why do we need a solution??

Here is a fishery which is showing absolutely no impact and yet we are told we need to shut the fishery down for 30 days to reduce impact!!

Like I said at the start, fundamentally, closed seasons are great ideas on fisheries which are showing signs of pressure and (as is the case with Barra) they can help reverse population trends. This type of closure has my 100% support.

In the case of coral trout however what is to be achieved by the closures? Studies are already saying their is insufficient available habitat on reefs to deal with annual spawning recruitment (so predation of fry occurs).

The pros will still catch their annual catch quota and rec fishers who used to fish these times of the year and catch their legal (& totally sustainable bag limits) now won't. The net result of this might be a few thousand less trout caught over the entire reef by rec fishers from a fishery which is not under any pressure in the first place.

This appears (to my way of thinking) to be more about the ongoing efforts to turn people away from the sport. Making it too hard, to many rules, too complicated and just not worth the effort...next comes sell the boat, get rid of the fishing gear & finally...Hey dad, why don't we go fishing anymore??

If the government is going to close down 1 spawning season for a fish which is not under pressure then it should (& who knows, maybe will) close down all fisheries during spawning aggregations..next comes bream, then tailor, whiting, mackrel, grunter, flathead, snapper & so on and so forth....thin edge of the wedge this hey!!

KC

[Derek Bullock]

This appears (to my way of thinking) to be more about the ongoing efforts to turn people away from the sport. Making it too hard, to many rules, too complicated and just not worth the effort...next comes sell the boat, get rid of the fishing gear & finally...Hey dad, why don't we go fishing anymore??


"Because back when they wanted to son, they stopped the Government from maintaining a sustainable fishery."


Derek ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[NeilD]

KC
I'm not so sure of the trout situation. I dived and speared a fair bit during the early eighties around the Bunker Group. My recent trips show heaps less Trout than during this period, especially anything over 2kg.
I spent a few weeks the year before last around the Mackay Marina berthed out with the live reef fish boats. None of the crews said the Trout were there in anything like the numbers previously caught and many had moved from Gladestone because they thought the Southern Swains were fished out for Trout and were not a viable fishery. Most of these blokes were quite open in saying that there were too many boats working the resource.

Neil

[budgie]

"Because back when they wanted to son, they stopped the Government from maintaining a sustainable fishery."


Derek #;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Education and attitude will benefit far more. There are the "fors and against" but from my experience the problem is with the policing of current restrictions. Too hard and expensive so lets just close some more!! Aren't we becoming the most over Governed (restricted) country in the civilised world!! NIMBY seems to be the controling factor. These closures affect the North more than anywhere else. How many regulators actually fish for true recreation and if the data that KC has is correct, then why cant we all question the decision? Derek, when i was a little bit younger, all the oldies used to say "things are only going to get worse", the way we live today make that a bit over the top, lets look at the facts and then make a decision, maybe a public debate to settle a few myths.

[Wally]

Nulla you are a bit out on the Shark Bay Pink snapper fishery

Shark Bay Pink Snapper fishery was was on the verge of collapse it wasn't till recreational fisherman raised the issue that a study was done and it found that the Pink snapper was totally decimated there for a strict management process was put in place

eg Min 500mm Max700mm with a Daily bag limit of 1

Closed season from 1 April to 31 July in the eastern Gulf

Denham sound Tags were issued and to receive a tag you apply and pay a fee then you go into a lottery then if you receive one of those limited tags then you can fish for Pink Snapper and follow the same rules.

Lucky they acted quickly on this fishery other wise it would of Collapsed

In Perth cockburn sound to be exact a group of us lobbied the Government to extent the Spawning closure till the end of Nov because our fishery is a little bit different by our Pinkies seem to spawn every day but only when the water temp is at 19 degrees +
So we had a closure that finished on the 31 of Oct this year then it reopened and it was a free for all and that isn't a exaggeration with stories of 3 guys catching 80 pinkies all in the 6 to 12 kg range in one week all with in there bag limits the only problem was that these fish were distributing their eggs & sperm on the decks of boats eventually the fisheries department with the help of concerned reco's got a extension and it is now closed to end of Nov by that time we hope the Pinkies have done there thing

Protect your spawning fish guys your kids or grand kids depend on it

Wally

PS Gazza dont reply to this post it aint worth it cause I wont reply to your comments on this issue.

[nulla]

Wally

As I understand it the fishery you refer to is a small pool of non-oceanic snapper that inhabit the inner section of Shark Bay. This is not the Oceanic Snapper fishery that I referred to.

My info on snapper in WA came from a December 2002 application by WA department of Fisheries to Environment Australia for the continued listing of the Snapper Fishery as being Ecologically Sustainable. Have things changed since then?

Correct me if I am wrong because this inner bay fishery ( a small pool of snapper that don't mix with the oceanic fish ) is what I think GBRMPA use as an example of a line fishery that has been over-fished.

Nulla

[Leo_N.]

Hi Leo,

If there is hard evidence to suggest that there is no problem...why do we need a solution??

Here is a fishery which is showing absolutely no impact and yet we are told we need to shut the fishery down for 30 days to reduce impact!!

KC

Sorry to be argumentative KC, but there is not 'hard evidence' that there is no problem. The paper by Mapstone et al that you quote (CRC reef research technical report #52) found that there is a significant difference in abundance, size and age of both red throat emperor and coral trout on fished and unfished (green zone) reefs. This difference is more pronounced in areas of high population density and close to major ports where the majority of fishing pressure exists. You can't take the bits of information that you like and ignore the rest.

I also have serious doubts about information regarding recruitment potential. People world-wide have attempted to breed coral trout in captivity for about 15 years now. What success there has been has been sporadic and in low numbers. This, along with the relatively small egg size and yolk sac and low larval development at first feeding suggest that the potential for larval survival is low and they are therefore expected to have a naturally low survival to recruitment to the reef.

Given the collapse of fisheries world-wide when spawning aggregations are targeted, it is prudent to err on the side of caution in this instance. There are many examples of fisheries that were thought to be sustainable which have now collapsed - look at the Atlantic cod fishery for a current example.

[kc]

Hi Leo,

Send me a PM and I will email you Dr Aylings study papers..they have been quoted as "The most extensive study of a single reef fish species ever undertaken". Makes for interesting reading. Would appreciate your thoughts.

Regards

KC

[nulla]

Leo

Glad you introduced CRC report 52 into this debate. If you read further into the report you will find :

"It is important to note that the status of coral trout populations in areas open to fishing remained relatively robust under all strategies we considered. For example, even under the most ‘adverse’ scenario of maximum effort constrained to the smallest fishable area, spawning biomass (in the open areas) remained above 50% of virgin spawning biomass and biomass available for harvest (i.e., above the minimum legal size limit) remained above 30% of virgin available biomass. These statistics generally would be considered acceptable for a harvested stock. In large part, this is likely to be the consequence of the biologically precautionary minimum legal size limit on harvest of common coral trout, which ensures that most fish can spawn in at least one year before reaching harvestable size."

This is the known science relating to coral trout at least. I have trouble reading into this the need for closures. If you catch some fish there will be less left. So what. The key issue is the take sustainable.

Comparing the GBR line fishery to the Atlantic Cod fishery is a stretch of the imagination - Trawlers with nets the size of football fields compared to Joe Blow with a line and a hook - not quite the same

Nulla

[Leo_N.]

Good point Nulla, and my comment was a bit off the mark - it was meant to show that fishing pressure is having a significant impact on the population in terms of numbers and size, and that this impact is not even across the GBR.

The simple fact is that we don't know the effect of fishing pressure at spawning time in coral reef systems. For instance does being caught and released affect the stress response of undersized (but sexually mature) trout to the extent that it affects spawning?

Most large fisheries declines have occured when spawning/recruitment fails. Protecting spawning aggregations is the most certain way of ensuring that the fishery remains sustainable.

My comment about the Atlantic cod fishery was not meant as a direct comparrison, but is a good example of what people thought was a sustainable fishing effort/pressure turned out to not be so sustainable.

KC,
I will send you that PM, but Ayling is also co-author of the Mapstone reports so his studies have been taken into account to some extent at least. Their findings seem to infer that there is a top-down pressure of fishing pressure on the population, removing the large fish and leaving more under-sized fish. This may indicate that the more fish you remove, the more recruitment that takes place on that reef. However it also has implications toward the spawning dynamics of these fished populations - coral trout are protogynous hermaphrodites (small ones are females), so the decrease in mean size does not necessarily decrease the potential for egg release into the population, but if the trend for fewer large fish continues, it may affect the ability to fertilise the eggs (less males) and may also have the potential to destabilise the spawning aggregations due to social interactions. This is especially likely if large fish are removed from the spawning aggregation at spawning time.

[kc]

Part of the drama is the triple whammy effect. First GBRMPA decide we need to close 30% of the reef forever to protect these fish, then the state Government decides it needs to reduce recreational bag limits, then the state decides to reduce commercial catch quotas and then we are told we need another 30 days of closures and all to protect a fish stock which their own science say is "robust" even in the most "adverse" scenario of maximum effort in smallest area.

If the trout closures are justified than all spawning aggregations, including bream, tailor, mackrel and snapper will go the same way.

TFPQ position is to fully support spawning closures where the science can demonstrate the stock is under threat(like Barra)....no study can even remotely demonstrate unsustainable pressure on trout stocks.

Anyhow Leo, I have sent you the Ayling papers and would be interested to here your views

Regards

KC

[devocean]

In time no one will be spared,

[megafish71]

Im not against closures where the science can demonstrate the stock is under threat, but I think here its more the rec fisho who is under threat. Sure the commercial fishers have lost 30 fishing days but that won't stop them from catching there quota, their out there fishing reguardless of the weather but the rec fisho isn't out at the reef when its blowing 20+knots. I have looked back through the records I have and on all but 2 new moon periods for Oct,Nov and Dec since 1997 the wind has been under 10knots, perfect weather for rec fisho's. You only have to look at the Nov closure to see that on the weekend prior to the closure the winds were around the 20 to 25knots then drops to under 10knots just prior to the closure and stays at that for the entire time of the closure. Now that the closure is over the winds have been steadily increasing and are now up around the 20knots again. I believe that the closures were only introduced to further frustrate the hell out of rec fisho's (and its working). #

[Wally]

Nulla you are right I thought you meant the inshore stocks

In saying that the ones that spawn in Shark Bay don't interact with the ones off shore but who is to say the fertilized eggs aren't the recruitment for the ones off shore. There is more studies been done as we speak on this group of Pink Snapper in Shark Bay and the closures that were put in place seem to be doing a great job in getting the Pink Snapper Stocks to a sustainable level and a lot more research needs to be carried out before we can relax the restrictions

Cheers Wally

[nulla]

Wally

Thanks for the update. I thought it was the inshore group of fish that were/are at risk and you confirm this.

The inshore pool of fish are known to be distinct because of genetic markers - that is the reason they are at risk in the first place. They don't interact with the off-shore fish and are a small local resource. If they provided eggs for the offshore group they would not be genetically different, which they are.

This is one of the problems as I see it. This is a very special case and in no way supports the need for closures on the GBR which is huge and lightly fished in comparison.

Anecdotal evedince I have come across says there are plenty of snapper inshore at present.

Do you have any first hand knowledge


Thanks again
Nulla

[Wally]

Nulla just got off the phone from a Fisheries WA scientist and he is telling me different that the fishery is still at levels which aren't except able because as you pointed out they souly in their own domain but he did say on the fringes that do inter mix with the offshore ones.
He also said Denham sound which includes the Frechinault and the Western Gulf still needs extreme caution even to the point where tags might be issued to these regions as well so in saying that there may be a recruitment there but caution is still needed for this fishery to get back up to sustainable levels

Apparently just this year there were over 4000 Pink Snapper tagged and there is a few public papers on this I will see if I can find the links for you and post them up.

Cheers Wally