PDA

View Full Version : News Release - Only one crab measurement proposed



QLD_Fisheries
28-05-2003, 04:44 AM
http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/news/newsreleases/12586.html

The information contained in this document is distributed by the Queensland Government for information purposes only. All reasonable steps have been made to ensure the information is accurate at the time of publication. For more information visit the DPI Fishweb site at http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/fishweb

imported_admin
28-05-2003, 06:44 AM
The Department of Primary Industries is proposing only one measurement for the minimum legal size limit of blue swimmer crabs despite reports to the contrary.

But according to the RIS the new Notch to Notch measurement is equal to in most cases a 14cm Tip to Tip measurement.

Fair enough that there is only one measurement proposed to be used (Notch to Notch) but why is it equal to a lower measurement than we already have.

Looks to me that this is a proposal to make it look like the government is acting on behalf to the rec fishos complaints but are proposing a measurement that will suit the current bad practice (Tipping) of some Pros.

Gazza
28-05-2003, 11:41 AM
Steve , I disagree :o
oh no ,somebodies reformatting my harddirve ,hello am i still connected ??? ,my monitor just exploded into flames ,not a good sign

:D :D :D
Mate , IF it's "sustainable" at a certain size ,as bequeathed by "those in the know" ,why not ???

you wanna only keep 15/16/17 plusses..... do it!! ,good onya ;)

15cm MUDDIE still stands ,doesn't it ??? should be 16/17 "muddie" jennies included in baglimit as well maybe just 1 or 2 (my IMHO only)


now ,believe it or not (go the knot) ,i'm gunna catch 8345 bream tomorrow ,because there is NO bag limit , so i'm goanna just keep 'em ALL above 30cms ;)

Regards
Gazza , 6 for $10 sandies cummin to a place near you (sydney ;) )

imported_admin
28-05-2003, 03:52 PM
Gazza

My main beef with this change is that they tell us they are changing it because of the problem with Tipping. So why decrease the minimum legal size?

All it seems to me that they are doing is saving the pros time spent tipping the crabs.

All they have to do is change the current law so that it reads
"Blueswimmer crabs must be 15cm Tip to Tip. In the case where a tip is missing the crab must still measure 15cm to the outer most points.

As far as sustainabilty there would be no change. Next year the pros will not be able to keep any crab under 15cm and would harvest a smaller number of crabs. The following year all the crabs they would have normally tipped and kept would be 15cm anyway and the cycle will be back to normal. Surely it would be better to allow a species to breed for more than one season before they are allowed to be taken.

The main reason a change has been looked at for this law is due to the mass number of undersize crabs being tipped and kept by pros.

Rec fisherman have been wanting a ban on the tipping of crabs for years. At no stage have they ever asked for a reduction in size of crabs, and as far as I know any other species.


There is just something that stinks about this change in the law and I am sure it is not the rec fisho they are looking out for.

clutter
28-05-2003, 05:20 PM
From what I have read, the only reason that the original measurement was 15cm was to match the muddie. There was no science involved at that stage. The new measure is based on a number of studies and as I see it who are we to argue unless you have studies to prove otherwise. I have no problem with it. It seems a bit ridiculous that we only seem to be able to accept a study if it says go bigger in size or less in bag limit.

Just my thoughts anyway.
Cheers, Clutter

imported_admin
28-05-2003, 07:01 PM
Clutter

The fact sheet states

"This new measurement, which is based on biological advice,..."
http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/fishweb/12473.html

This does not state it is based on a number Studies.

The main phrase that should be an indication that this is not for the rec fisho is
"The new size limit will provide economic benefits to fishers.."

Rec fisherman can not sell their catch nor in anyway receive "Economic Benifit" from fishing. So there is only one party that would gain "Economical Benefit" from these new rules.

Fitzy
28-05-2003, 07:26 PM
Qld Fisheries Services, being a division on Primary Industries, have as part of their charter, a responsibility to develope & protect a resource. Now once any venture earns or generates a dollar or two, it becomes a resource. Therefore it is the resonsibility of QFS to protect that "resource".
However, one of our past Primary Industry Ministers, who took a permanent holiday for playing footsies with his "aide de campe" while the missus was at home doing the chores, publicly stated that within 3 years (which has now passed) QFS will HAVE to be earning a dollar (read profit for treasury) as opposed to it getting an allocation of funds for operating each budget.
This put a massive tilt towards QFS protecting the commercial sector via the collection of fees, pemits, etc etc. As they cannot earn a direct buck out of the recreational angler, they don't give a rats arse about protecting anything that matters to us.
All the while they play this silly little game called "public consultation" where they allow US to comment on proposed changes to legislation to make the commercial sector more profitable, & then conveniently ignore anything that the QCFO don't agree with.
Then when we scream blue murder "after the fact" the pen pushers get to say "but we gave you the opportunity to comment".
They intentionally give the rec anglers the feeling that things are being done to give them a better slice of the pie, yet all the while curse the very existence of the rec angler.

A bit cynical you may ask?? Bloody oath. But I've been in many a meeting at many a level enough to feel that the above is certainly the case. They will do the absolute minimum they need to do to shut up the rec angler, yet go out of their way to make Commercial sector more profitable & to hell with any environmental expence. A few dead dolphins proved this to be the case a few years ago & while the deck chairs may have been "re-arranged" as a result, the general attititude still reigns supreme.
Now Henry if you happen to read this (& I hope one of you're lackeys will show you) please feel free to prove me wrong. And while you're at it, I've got a few more curly ones to throw your way.

Cheers,

Garry Fitzgerald (Fitzy..)

spike2
29-05-2003, 01:53 AM
hey fitzy im with you 100 % , its a problem with many govt departments , But ive found if you rattle enough doors long enough you can eventually get a result . though you can grow old in the mean time .
give them heaps
stephen millington

give em heaps

Jew_Chaser
29-05-2003, 02:58 AM
Newsflash....
"Thousands of hardware stores across Queensland have reported a downturn in sales.
"The downturn is believed to be the result of a reduction in the sale of side cutters.
The reason for this reduction in sales is not clear however Joe Bloggs, President of the Spanner Wielder’s Society says, " we used to sell a lot of side cutters to commercial fishermen but for some reason they don't buy them any more."

Gazza
30-05-2003, 08:20 AM
Gazza

My main beef with this change is that they tell us they are changing it because of the problem with Tipping. So why #decrease the minimum legal size?

All it seems to me that they are doing is saving the pros time spent tipping the crabs.

All they have to do is change the current law so that it reads
"Blueswimmer crabs must be 15cm Tip to Tip. In the case where a tip is missing the crab must still measure 15cm to the outer most points.

As far as sustainabilty there would be no change. Next year the pros will not be able to keep any crab under 15cm and would harvest a smaller number of crabs. The following year all the crabs they would have normally tipped and kept would be 15cm anyway and the cycle will be back to normal. Surely it would be better to allow a species to breed for more than one season before they are allowed to be taken.

The main reason a change has been looked at for this law is due to the mass number of undersize crabs being tipped and kept by pros.

Rec fisherman have been wanting a ban on the tipping of crabs for years. At no stage have they ever asked for a reduction in size of crabs, and as far as I know any other species.


There is just something that stinks about this change in the law and I am sure it is not the rec fisho they are looking out for.


Hi Steve , fair comments mate ,and basically "agree" 110% with your "logic"

a few bold points (refer above)
tipping problem ????......yep , this will minimise/solve it ?

time spent tipping??......now zero ? (or NO benefit anyways?)

MORE THAN ONE SEASON ???.......the only flaw (I) see in your thoughts.........mate ,it mentions they are mature at 10cms onwards ,not sure on "real" figures but I guesstimate each year it would only be 0.5 ~1.0cms.


not sure o.k. but would add a couple of breeding seasons BEFORE 11.5cms plus.....not sure, o.k.?

bottom-line (from Gazza)........."about time" some "logic" was brought into the "arguement" of SIZE or BAGLIMIT

as per usual ,just my IMHO
Regards
Gazza

imported_admin
30-05-2003, 08:47 AM
Gazza

Thanks for your comments, appreciate the input.

In the RIS the DPI states that if they stay with the existing measurement and change it to a notch to notch measurement of 12.4cm, there would be a decline of up to 18% in yield over a long term period.

I assume this would be due to the fact that no under sized (Tipped) crabs will be kept from now on and the total yield will only consist of 12.4cm notch to notch crabs. This will have very little, if any, effect on rec fishos as we will continue to only be able to keep crabs of the same size we are allowed now.

They also state that "This decline may even be more significant in the short term, a perioad of between two weeks and nine months, after which production would improve as the smaller crabs grow and attain legal size."

By the DPI's own admission the Pros will have lower yields for a period of two weeks to nine months. BIG DEAL. This is due 100% to their existing bad use of the resource. It is their bad practice that has created the need for a change in the law in the first place.

Gazza
30-05-2003, 09:24 AM
Hi Steve,
an 18% decline in "catch" IF they kept to a 15cm minimum. ???
ah ha #;D,that's the "exploitation" factor that is presently occurring (I assume? from tipping i.e. under 15cms)

Yep , still with ya 110% Steve, but RecFishos MUST NOT be penalised e.g. must use a "higher" legal size than Pro's to "access" the same resource.......surely !!!!

hey ,how many "undersize" fish are "available for sale" compared to standard/normal/expected RecFisho "limits" with other anomalies in "interstate trade" i.e. supposed "aquaculture" ,supposed "interstate sizes" explaining baitfish as "customer/restaurant size"

p.s. because "biologically mature" at 10cms (for sandies) is pedalled as "fact" , by QFS, so be it......for both "sides"

Locally this decision is fair to ALL , i.e. NO favourites #[smiley=argue.gif]
IF at a later date ,the "min. size" increases ,hey you & i ,would gladly accept the "restriction" , hope ya follow #;)

Regards
Gazza