Qld Fisheries management Green paper

https://www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au/g...2977/view.html

The circle continues. This is so frustrating. New Govt and new Green paper ( same rhetoric ). Briefly Commercial licences in Qld number 1700, harvest 20,000 tons of seafood for a $190Mill economic benefit. Recreational Fishers number 640,000, harvest 8,500 tons of seafood and have a $1Bill economic benefit to Qld. Yet Rec fishers have NO representation on Govt boards, committees, working groups and are not recognized as an economic benefit provider to Qld. Rec Fishers have NO departmental manager. Here is part of the Green Paper, released the other day.

For recreational fishers to contribute
to the proposed rebuilding of stocks
to higher levels it is proposed to
review current bag limits with a view
to simplify current arrangements and
reduce limits where required. Further,
the type and number of apparatus
that can be used by recreational
fishers will be reviewed in addition
to the size limits that apply to
recreational and commercial fishers.
In addition, the following Sustainable
Fishing election commitments will be
progressed –
▸
Develop a charter fishing action
plan that recognises charter
fishing as a distinct fishing activity
with an economic benefit for the
state, identifies tourism-related
potential at a regional level and
provides access to the resource
with minimal regulation.
▸
Sit down with both recreational
and commercial fishing
organisations to investigate how
a commercial net-free fishing area
can be best instituted in Moreton
Bay for the benefit of the region.
▸
Examine further net-free zones
after an open application process.


cheers LP

Easiest way to remove trawlers from an area is to remove the area they fish......artificial reefs are not trawler friendly.
Start by using old concrete pipes, bridge beams, pilons, block work in large chunks and scatter them randomly over the area you want to protect from nets. Over a decade you could have a massive area that is trawler free and a growing ecology.

How many millions of tonnes of concrete and bricks are used in landfill each year??

I just sent to scrap recycling about 6 tonnes of large steel pipes that would have been perfect for an artificial addition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucky_Phill

Recreational Fishers number 640,000, harvest 8,500 tons of seafood and have a $1Bill economic benefit to Qld

---

Page 5 - $400 million?

Also from page 5, "Recreational fishers make a substantial contribution to regional economies from products and services such as bait and tackle, accommodation and food".

Green paper Submissions - Extended to the 14th October 2016 !


“Based on the ongoing level of interest and community feedback on the Green Paper, public comment will now be open for an extra two weeks and close on 14 October 2016,” Minister Donaldson said.


http://statements.qld.gov.au/Stateme...eform-extended


If you only ever make one submission to Fisheries Queensland - make it this one !


Thanks Scotto

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt_Campbell

Page 5 - $400 million?

Also from page 5, "Recreational fishers make a substantial contribution to regional economies from products and services such as bait and tackle, accommodation and food".

---

The $ figure is not fully supported by specific data. FQ state $400 mill.......... other sources state much higher and in fact the $1 bill is a more accepted figure although it could be lower. To fully understand the economic input into the Qld economy one would have to undertake a massive and dare I say , impossible , regime of studies on specifics and unquantifiable data to attain a " reasonably close estimate " .

cheers LP

( from Judy Lynne, Executive Officer, Sunfish Queensland Inc )

Hi everyone


Responses to Fisheries Queensland Green Paper are now due by Friday 14^th October, 2016.

I have attached the Sunfish DRAFT response.

We are holding a couple of meetings next week for anyone to attend who wants to provide further input or just wants to know how we landed where we did with this draft. Everyone is welcome.

Meeting 1 Blue Fins Fishing Club in the Training Room at 7.30pm on Tuesday 11^th October

Meeting 2 Kedron Wavell Services Club in the Sky Lounge at 7.30pm on Wednesday 12^th October

Can you please forward this email throughout your networks and to friends who may be interested.

The more responses that are received to this paper the better, otherwise the government may consider we lack interest in whatever changes they decide to go with. Here is a link to the survey and background information. Please consider providing a personal response.

https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/fisheries...-in-queensland

Well I was very excited to read this come out of Sunfish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sunfish

NO, we don’t agree w

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sunfish

ith a percentage based criteria.
The Green Paper proposes that stocks are managed in a very novel way on the principle that 60% of the targetedpopulation should be left in the water. FQ's explanation was that the 60% was to apply to BIOMASS of thefished part of the population (i.e. fish over the minimum size or within slot limits). Such a management approachwould require a biomass model and very good data to work the model. It is very complicated and difficult tounderstand and interpret. The model requires input of much "virtual data" or guess work. The 60% approachsuggested by FQ does not take into account any of the unfished part of the population - e.g. fish below theminimum size, the population protected in green zones, or protected by closures. This means that the juvenileand early adult part of the populations are not being managed at all.


The whole of a stock needs to be measured because over time as size limits and protected areas change it makesdata collected unable to be compared over time. When the whole of the stock is the basis for comparison thedata collected is repeatable and comparable.

---

i thought to myself, shit Sunfish has finally got their shit together. This is very encouraging. They were very polite in calling FQ's biomass modelling "guess work" as FQ should be ashamed of themselves over their previous Snapper biomass assessment.

Then I read this in the next part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sunfish

• The adult component over the minimum size (the fished component) – stable over time as measured by
  CPUE, age frequency, models, etc.
•  Monitor primarily via catch and effort changes over time (see past and present condition and trendreports published by FQ or FRDC).

---

and I had to roll my eyes again. I know I said it all before during the Snapper debacle but if Sunfsh are referring to CPUE and effort changes for Commercial operators only then fine, but recreational catches with relation to effort are a waste of time and will always be hyper depleted. Recreational catches must have VERY robust catch data before we can hope to have any confidence in mathematical models.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sunfish

YES Current collection methods are reasonable for catch data but they sorely need to be able to be validated.

---

I strongly disagree with this for the recreational catch. Only a mandatory catch card system will give a much more robust collection method.

[quote=Sunfish] Recreational data needs to be collected from a group of trusted fishers who agree to participate. They need to besourced from all regions, all fishing types and varying skill levels. A co-efficient of the relationship of this group tothe whole recreational fishing community needs to determined and this used with spot sampling to validaterecreational take. Once again data collected in real time electronically.


Stock assessments in important species are critical because they will be the final validation of all catch data. [/quote]

I'm sorry but if there is anecdotal evidence of declining numbers in a species, such as a few lazy charter operators having a whinge they can't put customers on the fish, before FQ even thinks about a stock assessment, they need to implement a mandatory catch card for that species. Not just extrapolate a few that agree to participate.

" I strongly disagree with this for the recreational catch. Only a mandatory catch card system will give a much more robust collection method. "

My submission was very much along the lines of " voluntary or mandatory catch cards ". Either hard copy or electronic.

I figure, if you have fishers offside then by forcing a catch card you can only gain support.... as there are many rec guys out there that would be keen to fill in the catch data... depending on what specifics they wanted.

I also made submissions in relation to other avenues of increasing " bio-mass " other than band-aid bag limits etc.

There was even one question I didn't understand, but hey ! :(

LP

I don't really see what the point of all this is anyway. The moron Labor government are just going to have a moron Fisheries minister (or what ever the profile name is these days is it DPI&F?) make into law measures that zero stakeholder group and not even FQ recommend to him/her anyway just like last time.