RRFF Review - something to think about…

[Andrew_P]

This post is not going to make me the most popular bloke on here, but sharing opinions and providing information is the greater purpose of this website so I’ll have a crack.

As an Ausfisher (with a background in science) I was at one of the recent RRFF meetings and was astonished with the way the DPI&F estimates of recreational catch and the varying estimates of the stock assessment (5 estimates ranging from conservative to less conservative) were immediately discounted as “fudged figures” and “horse stuff”. Regarding the estimates of total snapper landings, is it that hard to grasp that perhaps there was 550t of snapper caught by the recreational fishing fraternity in 2005? With so many recreational fishers living in the south-east corner, it does not take very many bag-outs to reach this figure. To compare, if only 170-odd active commercial fishers (who although may not be restricted by bag limits, still have many of the same constraints on their fishing time as you and I do – bad weather, fuel costs, family responsibilities, dud trips and boat troubles) can catch 230t of snapper in a year – do you not think that the recreational figure of 550t is not reachable?

Sure, the “not everyone can fish as well as I do, and I don’t bag out every time” mentality may be accurate to a point, but when you think about the numbers of recreational fishers there are (as the DPI&F have done, whether correctly or incorrectly, there are a lot and that number is rising) out there catching or not catching the prized pink fish of SE Queensland, 550t does not amount to a large number of fish per fisher. Granted, the majority of people would have caught none, but, as an example, if you went out by yourself once a week over the winter months (equal to 12 times) and bagged out each time (60 fish total), even at the 1.7kg average (as stated by the DPI&F on the night) that is equal to 102 kg of fish! This would only require just over 5000 fishers (less than 1 % of the proposed total number of rec fishers) from the Tweed to Hervey Bay and north (home to over 2 million people) fishing with the same results to reach the estimated 550t! What if you took a mate with you and he bagged out each time? It does not take a lot for the numbers to creep up! Regardless of how many recreational fishers there are, 60 000 or 600 000, I see this as an entirely credible estimate.

Therefore I ask - how many snapper did you catch in 2005?

I hear you say: What about the fisher that only wets a line once a year? He won’t catch that much! I say: What about the NSW recreational fisher that goes out from the Tweed and fishes the Gold Coast grounds whenever he can, and is not counted as a Qld recreational fisher because his address is not in Qld? He will catch a fair bit! Of course, these estimates of recreational fishing involvement or snapper landings cannot account for every single variable involved in the process either adding to or subtracting from the estimates, they serve only as estimates from the best information collected and available. The point I am trying to make is that whether the actual exact figures are well below (or above) the estimate, it is not unreasonable to believe that that figure of 550t in 2005 is in the ballpark and therefore, should not be discounted immediately as “Horse stuff”. If you want to increase the power of DPI&F’s estimates and their management of fisheries resources, sign up for their recreational fisher diary program: (http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/cps/rde/dpi/hs.xsl/28_11150_ENA_HTML.htm), let them measure your catch at the boat ramp, and ring them up on the Fishwatch hotline number 1800 017 116 if you see anyone doing the wrong thing – remember, it is your fishery as much as it is mine. Dare I mention that the only 100% accurate way of determining exactly how many recreational fishers there are in Qld, and their catch, involves a licence and reporting system and nominal fee….

What I did find interesting was that when the estimated take of snapper by recreational fishing in 2007 of 434t was presented, (a decrease of 116t from the 2005, 550t estimate) – no-one said anything! Surely a decrease of 20% in as little as 2 years would come as a stark warning that something was up, even if it was “just an estimate”? Yes it could be the weather, a bad season, unfavourable conditions at key moon phases etc., but when combined with an increase in effort (from people moving to Qld, purchasing boats and taking up fishing for the “lifestyle”), more boat registrations, daily reports of fish being caught (including those with pictures on Ausfish), information on changes in technology and how to use it (i.e. soft plastics, new, better sounders and plotters) and mark-sharing being readily available, combined with the fact that in general, people are having to go farther and wider to catch a feed, how could the stocks not be exhibiting stress? If you are catching your bag using the same methods in the same places you have been going for the last 30 years, you must be a very good fisherman!

You have to remember that just because people don’t post on Ausfish, that does not mean that fish have not been caught.

In terms of the stock assessment, even with a scientific background, it is hard to grasp how the DPI&F came to these conclusions. I use the magic analogy with some trepidation, but although it can seem like they are pulling numbers (rabbits?) out of a hat – the scientist (and the magician) knows exactly what he is doing and does the best with the tools he is provided. He uses a wide range of data from a number of sources, understands that there may be certain levels of error involved with estimates and encompasses error in final estimates – that is why the stock assessment estimates ranged from 20% to 50% of virgin stock biomass, and the DPI&F line was drawn at a conservative 40%. It is worthy to note that the Qld DPI&F do not come up with these methods of working out how many fish there are in the sea, nor can they, like you or I, go out and count every single one of them. The methods they employ are proven, world’s-best-practice methods from peer-reviewed scientific journals utilized world-wide to estimate the levels of stock using a variety of tools, absolute values, proven mathematic formulas and where absolute numbers are not available, educated estimates of variables that may influence the stock (including fishing mortality from a variety of fishing methods). If these methods depended upon wild, unfounded guestimates for the sake of having a guess, the nature of the scientific community and peer-reviewed journals mean that these inaccurate methods of stock assessment would either 1: not be published in the first place or 2: be discredited by more knowledgeable peers. Personally, I thought that the stock assessment could have been better defended on the night, but understood completely that perhaps the audience was not conducive to this.

Like it or not, on behalf of the people of Queensland, the DPI&F are the custodians of our fishery resources and have responsibilities to the entire state to manage the resource effectively, in a sustainable manner, with equal access to all and with ever-decreasing budgets – you would have to agree, a tough gig. Having crossed paths with them in the past (and hopefully in the future), I personally have seen how hard these guys and girls are working for us – from the volunteers who give up their weekends (and fishing trips!) to measure fish at the boat ramp, the researchers who go to the fish markets at all hours, to the Boating Patrol officers who enforce the rules and regulations prescribed by legislation, written via the consultations of managers, scientists, stakeholders and you, the fishing public. Some of Qld’s best and most passionate scientists work for the DPI&F, and it is their job to collect, collate and report this information day in, day out, and make key decisions to the betterment of Qld fisheries resources. Did you ever think that they may be keen fishermen and women who will be affected by these proposed changes, just like you and I?

Slightly off the point but worth a mention: at the meeting I was at, one of the graphs showed that a small proportion of fish measured by volunteers were in the 20-30cm range (i.e. much lower than the legal limit). Although the volunteer does not have the authority book the person/s who kept these fish (as gaining this authority would involve a significant investment of time and money on behalf of the person and the State, only to be utilized on very few occasions), do you really think it would have gone un-noticed, and passed un-said? Firstly, for the person to allow the volunteer to measure their fish containing those that were undersize, they would have had to have been very brazen, stupid or had no idea what they had caught and the subsequent size limit of that species. The volunteer would have without a doubt mentioned the size limit for the species was 35cm, as they are there acting in an educational, public liaison and research capacity on behalf of the DPI&F.

It is obvious that the majority of the fishing community cares greatly for our resources, and the future of our past-time. I was glad to see that measures such as increasing size limits and introducing catch cards were taken on-board with little argument or resistance. May I pose the question – if you really believed that the snapper stocks were “not at risk” and “better than ever”, would you agree whole-heartedly to the implementation of any of these measures, however small they may seem?

3 and 4 month time or area closures that prevent the taking of snapper or rocky-reef fin fish are drastic and will definitely have their flow on effects to the community, including problems with the displacement of fishing effort into other areas and reducing “equal access”, and who knows what affect the EPA closures will have on snapper stocks, but if the DPI&F scientists deem such drastic measures are necessary, do you think that this may indicate the gravity of the situation faced by the snapper resource?

Something to think about...

In summary – fill out your response form and send it to the DPI&F, but consider the fact that the figures, diagrams and estimates are the best available to them at the present time, and that there is no hidden agenda behind them. Acknowledge the options available and their ultimate intention – to ensure the sustainability of our iconic fisheries resources. Carefully craft your responses and remain as objective as possible given the circumstances – there will be someone reading them! Think about signing up for the recreational fishing diary program and reporting your catches, but most of all, have a little faith in the Department and its processes. After all, they could have declared a number of changes without public consultation….Be glad that they are involving us in their making of socially, economically and environmentally responsible decisions, and that the 70’s culture of unaccountable public servants is over.

If you have made it this far, I thank you for reading this lengthy post. I will now step down from the soap box and put on my flak-jacket!

[Chris Ryan]

Well done Andrew-P for putting your point of view across. I don't think there would be much gained from anyone putting missiles to you.

The problem with the stats being used is concerning considering there is a 10% error rate in the numbers from the DPI&F (quoted by a DPI&F officer) being used then there are considerable issues to be raised. As pointed out in another thread by oldboot with these numbers (thanks for that mate), if they are making these assumptions based upon what equates to 0.5% of the population then we are taking about an error rate 20 times the sample size.

So if the recrational tonnage is planned to get to 220 tonnes and they estimate 735,000 people fish in this state (majority concentrated in the SE Corner of 66%), then we are talking about 0.3kg per person of snapper. Doesn't sound right does it. Of course I am not taking into account those that don't get to the snapper fishery or those who dont target them.

Here is a fix, I am sure if they added back the prawn trawler by-catch of between 30-100 tonnes per annum of juvenile snapper from Southern Moreton Bay alone, having them left to grow with a normal mortality rate, then that would be a great start to adding to the bio-mass.

I for one am all for sustainable fishing being based on sound science. The problem is however the basis of all decisions now is the "precautionary principle" which means that no matter what science says, if it is perceived to be a threat then it must be deemed as true regardless of scientific fact and thus allows them to do something about it with almost no recourse. We can all argue until we are blue in the face about the science being true or false, but at the end of the day this is the Department and the Government's get out of jail free card and they use it....and will do so more frequently into the future. It was the death of common sense decisions made upon sound scientific principles when this got through parliament and really has done nothing to support DPI&F scientists at all, let alone the consituants who pay the wages of public servants.

All my personal opinion of course.

Thanks again for your post.

Cheers,
Chris

[tunaticer]

I agree that obtaining figures is a bundle of firecrackers that will upset some people, however an assessment must be made of the fishery to decide how to manage it properly. The only true way to assess the fishery for absolute numbers is to have a volunteer counting fish as they are caught on every fishing trip in any given area. That will never happen in this country.

Whilst green zones protect thier areas fairly well they also lead to heavier fishing of close structure adjacent to the green zones in the belief that there will be spill over fish from sanctuaries to be had. I can see in some cases that heavy deployment over the nearby reefs or structures could possibly be as effective as commercial netting almost around the clock and removing the stepping stones the fish use in thier migrations.

I still believe that a lot more effort needs to be made into creating new habitats for fish and to spread them evenly out along the coastline. A series of artificial reefs spaced roughly a km apart and 300m offshore would do a lot more towards protecting the fishery than imposing more green zones and seasonal lockouts. Creating artificial reefs needs to be streamlined and easier to meet the requirements set before us.

Everything we do now will sooner protect our fishery.

Jack.

[3rd degree]

I think the license idea is the way to go, and if they can incorperate an option for a reduced fee in return for acurate reporting of catch numbers, maybe the DPI can get some more accurate numbers than what has been porported to date.

The license and reporting concept doesn't go down well with some but at least would be some accurate numbers to use as a base line for rec fisho's.

Just my couple of cents worth.

Cheers

Jim

[BilgeBoy]

Mate I was one of those muppets that let the Fisheries check my catch and I was told that I had an undersized fish. My measuring stick showed 35 and his showed 34.5 marking my fish officially undersized. So I now have a limit of 38 on my boat.

I also attended one of the meetings and I gotta say...What a load of poly waffle.

Seriously....in 36 years of fishing the bay I have not had a fisheries inspector check my catch (other than the volunteer at the ramp who was surveying). So as I asked....what extra resources will be allocated to protect my percentage of the stocks. Why make rules that they cannot enforce! Oh and for the record....I didn't get an answer.

This sure is a topic that LOTS of people are very passionate about and I sure would not want to be the ones driving this policy. As a rec fisher I agree that we have to do something...but the DPI research data is quite clearly flawed and by their own admission...a best guess situation.

I was surprised to see that they had not considered upper limits, the likes of which have worked so well for species such as Flat head????

What disapointed me the most was the overwhelming feeling in the room that no matter what was said....nothing would be changed and that what was being proposed would be put into legislation.

Anyway like I said....this sure is a passionate topic and I am sure we will all read and hear lots more about this in the time ahead. To all involved...I hope we can get this one right!!!

Regards

BilgeBoy

[PinHead]

"Sure, the “not everyone can fish as well as I do, and I don’t bag out every time” mentality may be accurate to a point, but when you think about the numbers of recreational fishers there are (as the DPI&F have done, whether correctly or incorrectly, there are a lot and that number is rising) out there catching or not catching the prized pink fish of SE Queensland, 550t does not amount to a large number of fish per fisher. Granted, the majority of people would have caught none, but, as an example, if you went out by yourself once a week over the winter months (equal to 12 times) and bagged out each time (60 fish total), even at the 1.7kg average (as stated by the DPI&F on the night) that is equal to 102 kg of fish! This would only require just over 5000 fishers (less than 1 % of the proposed total number of rec fishers) from the Tweed to Hervey Bay and north (home to over 2 million people) fishing with the same results to reach the estimated 550t! What if you took a mate with you and he bagged out each time? It does not take a lot for the numbers to creep up! Regardless of how many recreational fishers there are, 60 000 or 600 000, I see this as an entirely credible estimate.

Therefore I ask - how many snapper did you catch in 2005?"

5000 fishers bagging out..that is apporx 100 per week..take out the bad weather weeks..I doubt it very much. Only a small percentage of fishos fish for snapper..there are large numbers thta fish estuaries for bream whiting and flathead and never even bother fishing for snapper. I think your numbers are based on supposition and the word estimates are used way too much.

how many snapper did I catch in 2005 = 0.

what about so called unaccountable public servants in the 70's?