Anomaly in Fisheries regulations

[Nugget]

I’ve been studying the regulation pretty hard of late and… - it may be just my interpretation – but I see a rather glaring anomaly.
Regulations prevent the skinning or filleting of some species while at sea but nowhere can I see that says you can not remove the head of a species – leaving the rest of the fish whole.

If an unscrupulous angler cut the head off all his undersize fish (and threw the heads overboard) there would be no way of proving if his catch was undersize.
From the way I read the regulations – he could not be breached.

Am I missing something or is there a glaring loophole in the regulation that can – and will be – exploited?

Dave ><>

[propdinger]

dave
when i had a look through them i didnt read anything about not removing its head but it was over a month ago it did read to me though that the fish should be hole so i just asumed that there is a law

i dont know
jeff
??? ??? ??? ???

[Nugget]

I'm sure I've got it wrong and am missing something.
Someone will straighten me out I'm sure.


Fire away Phill!
Dave ><>

[agnes_jack]

Dave
The only regs I can see on the brochure that relate to that is that it states -Chinese footballer trout must be retained whole.
It also says-Whole fish must have pectoral fin removed before being placed in cold storage.
If thats the case then imo unless its a footballer, then nothing stops you removing its head, and if you do then you dont have to take a pectoral fin off???
This reg brochure is a summary only, have you checked it against a full version of the regs?

Regards, Tony

[Daintreeboy]

My understanding is that any fish that is filleted (or has had it's head cut off) must make the legal size limit. That is, what you have left. Obviously you must have a fish that is well over the legal size limit to do any of these things as the resulting fillet or headless fish will be much smaller. I guess the footballer clause is to prevent anyone getting one that's too big and chopping it's head off or filleting it to bring it under 80 cm.
I haven't read it in awhile but that is my recollection of the rule.
Cheers, Mark.

[jeffo]

from what a fisheries inspector said at a sunshine coast sportfishing club meeting my taking of the rules are "if you have a fish on board with head removed there MUST be a way for you to prove its legal!" more of a guilty till you prove your inocent type of thing.

[basserman]

i know in nsw you can fillet your fish but as mark said they have to be over x cm (i can't rember) but if under then must come back to boat ramp as whole fish but this dos not mean it can't be gilled and gutted!
so really doesn't do anything if they are undersized they are still dead!

[Nugget]

I've found out that it makes no difference what anyone says - mate, inspector or water police.
It's what is in the ACT that is important and what you will be breached on.
I don't even bother looking at the summary brochure or web site any more because it has proven to be incorrect.

In the past I've made enquiries relating to regulations and been given a difinitive answer by an inspector only to later find out he was wrong.

Dave ><>

[jimbamb]

Nugget.
I believe a fish isn't whole if the head is off.Am i missing sumthin here???Doesn't hole mean Complete??

[SNELLY]

Just had a look - Fillets must be 40CM

The brochure states for Coral Reef fin Fish - which are the ONLY fish that have to have a pectoral fin removed at this stage

" A fish must not be filleted at sea unless the fillet is 40cm or greater "

[Nugget]

No I think I'm missing something.
Where does it say - in the ACT - that fish kept must be whole.

It says no skinning, no filleted it gives specifics for taking fish for consumption on board, it gives specifics for use as bait.

I just can't see where it says that I can't cut the head off a fish.
If it is legal to cut the head off a fish while it is on board then it would be very difficult for a court to convict someone for undersize fish.

I'm not talking about filleting - I'm talking about a whole fish minus head.
Dave ><>

[SNELLY]

Dave,

I see what you mean but where do you draw the line - should it be reworded to cleaning or anything other than a whole fish

SNELLY

[mackmauler]

good point Dave, the next wahoo that comes in with 1/3 of its body wont be the first, will it be an undersize fish :-/ :-/

[Lucky_Phill]

I'm onto it Dave !

Hold onto your hat !

Phill

[Lucky_Phill]

Bloody hell Dave, took me 2 minutes to find it.

Page 74 section 140. as reads below:-

(1) A recreational fisher must not possess, on board any boat, coral reef fin fish taken from a boat other than in 1 of the following forms:-

(a) whole

(b) gilled and gutted

(c) if sub-sectio 2 or 3 applies, filleted.

Maximum penalty- 100 penalty points.

sorry Dave, good try.

Phill

[Nugget]

Yes Phill - I know the CRFF intimately.
I should have been a little clearer.

I'm getting myself up to speed on the 'ACT' as it relates to the Rocky Reef Fin Fishery and inshore fin fishery.

The 'NEW' Coral Reef Fin Fish regulations were worded in such a way as to close any possible loop hole.
What I'm concerned about is the rest of the species that swim out there?

The way I see it there is nothing stopping a rat bag from cutting the head off an undersize mackerel and keeping it.

Dave ><>

[Lucky_Phill]

OK Dave. I see, I thought it was too easy.

I'll have a decko at the RRFF and inshore stuff.

:-/ ::) 8)

( Phill skulks down in his chair of knowledge, jumped the gun again ! )


cheers Phill ;)

[Lucky_Phill]

Shoot Dave, the ACT is nearly 500 pages long.

Had a squizz and the only thing that comes near is on Page 92 Para (4).

There is nowhere in the ACT that mentions size limits either. Should this be in there or is the regulation good enough. I thought to be brought before the courts on matters, the law had to be in an ACT ?

I have checked all amendments also.

I'll keep looking.

Cheers Phill :D ::)

[imported_admin]

By the looks of things Dave you are right in what you say.

Looks like they realised this when they wrote the Coral Reef Fin Fish (CRFF) act. They also closed this loophole up on crabs by stating that the carapace can not be removed unless for imediate consumption. Looks like a big loophole.

As an example - If you have a flathead in your possesion with the head removed there is no way they can fine you as they can not prove it is undersized and you have not broken any rule by cutting its head off.

[gif]

Phil

Only 500 pages #- not memorized yet? #dear oh dear

Well I will leave it to you to search - but I think Nugget is right, based on my research into the issue of cleaning whiting at sea. #( The brochure #and the web site were both wrong but in different ways. The web site was finally fixed after weeks. #The new brochure I have not seen yet.)


So, unless Phil finds a point ( like the one on not removing prawn heads) #the Nugget is right - you can cheat on the size by removing the head.

Then again that is a technical answer.


Now let’s pretend we go to Court. #I would suggest two possible outcomes:

1. # As there was no way of proving the length of the #fish then the case gets thrown out # - and the accused is awarded costs by a grumpy Magistrate who says insulting things to the Department Officers who wasted his time.

OR

2. # A keen fisho Magistrate looks at your 100 undersized fish and says – “well if you took off the head that your problem # I measure what’s left. # #So your (headless) fish is under 23cm # so pay up.” # # #- In cases where the crime is obvious Judges often feel free to make weird interpretations of the law. # #

The Law has little to do with logic or justice. # # #So in the end any outcome is possible.

Still I would love to argue this one in front of #a Judge.

... #I wonder if it has ever been tried? # #I do like the tidy up in the CRFF #regs which shodl make its way into inshore regs when they are relased.

Gary

[bugman]

Nugget,

I'm at the Finfish MAC tomorrow - I'll bring it up. Anything else you want mentioned - or anyone else for that matter?

Bugman

[stark]

It seems to me that the problem most of us face is cleaning the catch after a very tiring day. The simple solution is to retain the scraps. i.e.; filet and retain the head and bone structure. If the filets match the body and head of the fish, then there shouldn’t be a problem.

I suppose that is far too simplistic and easy a solution. The regulators and their regulations wouldn’t be able to cope with something simple.

Cheers
John

[Nugget]

Nugget PM's the Bugman...

[dazza]

good topic dave.
unfortunatley i don't think it really matters because queensland fisheries are too piss weak to get serious and enforce the laws to any degree that will worry any fisho that wants to break the laws.
the usual lack of resourses etc is the common excuse plus others, while our fisheries are plundered.
i often read on these boards about nsw fisheries prosecutions, where are qld fisheries ??? ???
surley they have a press release when successful prosecutions are made, is it available on the web??
sorry bit off the track, but imho relavant
cheers
dazza

[neptune]

could people also use this for over sized fish such as flathead. Cut the head off an 80cm flathead and it's okay?

[basserman]

but if you cut the head of a flattie and left with say a 75cm body it doen't take a rocket sciencet to figure the fish was alot bigger than 80cm

[Lucky_Phill]

If you were a Qualified Rocket Scientist, you would NOT be a Fisheries Inspector.

Think about it !

We're onto Dave, still, but it appears the Loophole is Large. it may even turn into a Black Hole !

Phill

[Cheech]

Know what you mean. I thought about this a while ago, but came to a diferent conclusion.

But,,, I did not read the long version. Just what was on the DPI website.

I looked at each point in isolation.

The regs say that there is a minimum size. So this must hold true. No matter what. As there is nothing that says there is an exception to this rule.

It then says "under the section on filleting" that you can fillet but not remove the skin and the fish must be divided into portions in a way that an inspector can easily count the number of fish.

Because this is under the section of filleting, and as filleting is removing a fillet from a fish, removing a head is probably not considered filleting. But even if it was, it clearly states that the fish can be divided, but does not say parts can be disposed of.

It looks to me that after filleting you end up with one fish frame, or even 2 or more sections of a frame that can then be measured for length. ie portions that an inspector can easily count the number of fish. To do this there would also have to be fillets that match the frames.

I think if you disposed of part of the frame then Gary Fooks magistrate would rule on point 2 and measure what is left. Then probably still throw the book at you for not meeting the dividing but NOT disposing of rule.

My guess is that they state it that way so that we are not inconvenienced if we want to fillet our fish on the boat. You can fillet as long as you keep all the portions so an inspector can clearly count the number of fish in posession. And leave the skin on for extra species identification.

Or, I could be totally wrong in my interpretation.

Regards,

Cheech

[stark]

I wonder if we are making it difficult for ourselves with these regs. Perhaps someone who has had an inspection could offer their experience?

I think Cheech has the jist of the matter. Anyone who has run afoul of an inspector care to comment?

Cheers
John

[basserman]

that amke sence cheech but also means i'v been doing bad by tossing the frame over the side :-X but my fillets are always bigger than 40cm :P

[neptune]

I'm not sure about fish, but with reptiles you can get a fairly accurate overall length by the size of the scales, as there is always the same amount of scales(same number of rows of scales) on each species.

[bugman]

Gentleman,

Just to clarify - from the mouth of the Southern Boating Patrol manager - there is nothing in the legislation that says removing th head of a fish is illegal.

However from the mouth of the Qld Fisheries Manager - it's coming.

And to keep in mind - there is a passage in the legislation that says a fisher cannot mutilate a fish in order for it to be not measured - interpretation needed by a judge but the intention is clear.

Bugman

[stark]

bugman

Did the question arise regarding fileting and keeping the frames?

Cheers
john

[basserman]

to me if you had to fillet and keep the frames then you would be better off waiting til you hit land and doing it on land
i myself have always cleaned and filleted the fish i keep on the boat while getting every think ready to come home i just liked the idea of getting to the boat ramp and just putting the boat on the trailer and being able to drive off home but after reading this i think i better check the regs in NSW before i get my self in trouble :o

[bugman]

Sorry John,

Must have missed that question. As far as I was aware you could only fillet if the fillet size finished above a certain size - reef plan anyway.

Are you talking about fish that fall under other plans?

Brett

PS I'm now on first name basis with the Southern Boating Patrol manager who encourages anyone of us to contact him at any time. Probably not right to post his details here but if anyone has any real issue you can either pass them on through me or message me privately for his details.

Brett

[stark]

Hi Brett

This was a general question. As the regs are specific with regards to certain type, I was wondering about general types such as whiting, bream, macks etc.

The frames would prove the size unless the inspector has other ideas.

Cheers
John