Snapper Stocks - Another View

[Fish_gutz]

Thanks Misfish , John (Pope`ie) for an educating and informative post. a great read from a passionate snapper lover. I hope I am venturing back to your shop to weigh in for many years to come , you are a true gentleman and I admire your passion for these great fish. . Cheers Muz

[Lucky_Phill]

whats wrong with 260t. rec fishermen cant catch that many anyhow. pinhead proved we cant possibly catch 400t because that would be 22 fishermen every day of the year bagging out on 10kg snapper. 260t is still 14 fishermen baggin out on 10kg snapper every day of the year. 22 or 14 not much different when you are talking about bagging out on 10kg snapper every day of the year.

didn't pick your post for any particular reason other than to highlight a couple of things.

Firstly, the ' average ' size of a recreational caught Snapper in Qld is 1.2kgs - 1.6kgs.

Equates to about 300,000 fish being caught.

the figures are:-

821 fish per day !!! OR

Qld fisheries believe that there are about 7,000 plus recs that target / catch snapper.

that sort of means each rec angler takes 42 fish per year. or about 8 trips per year ( if bagging ).....


Put in that scenario, is this possible ??????


LP ?





.
.
.
.
.

[sleepygreg]

I got 0 for the last 12 months, though I did bag out once the previous year....that was a hot sesh.....probably for a total of 8 trips over two years (that snapper were a target species). I did however, catch other fish on those trips.

[thelump]

didn't pick your post for any particular reason other than to highlight a couple of things.

Firstly, the ' average ' size of a recreational caught Snapper in Qld is 1.2kgs - 1.6kgs.

Equates to about 300,000 fish being caught.

the figures are:-

821 fish per day !!! OR

Qld fisheries believe that there are about 7,000 plus recs that target / catch snapper.

that sort of means each rec angler takes 42 fish per year. or about 8 trips per year ( if bagging ).....


Put in that scenario, is this possible ??????





.
.
.
.
.

I reckon I averaged 3 per trip with about 7-8 trips for the winter. Through in 2 x PBs for the year and I think 2 x bag outs. So I am around half of the estimate give or take. And I thought I had a good year

[Lovey80]

didn't pick your post for any particular reason other than to highlight a couple of things.

Firstly, the ' average ' size of a recreational caught Snapper in Qld is 1.2kgs - 1.6kgs.

Equates to about 300,000 fish being caught.

the figures are:-

821 fish per day !!! OR

Qld fisheries believe that there are about 7,000 plus recs that target / catch snapper.

that sort of means each rec angler takes 42 fish per year. or about 8 trips per year ( if bagging ).....


Put in that scenario, is this possible ??????


LP ?

.

Phill,

just thought of something Re: this post. Not sure why it didn't register the first time.

If that figure is in fact accurate. Am I right in thinking that the average size of Recreationaly caught snapper would be between 35 and 40cm guessing on those weights?

If so that would mean that the number of say 40cm plus Snapper being caught by Rec Anglers must be so insignificant as to raise the average KG of fish above that say 2kg mark?

If the above two assumptions are close to correct that must mean a HUGE portion of recreationaly caught snapper must be under 40cm right? like 95%?

Interesting this one.

[caster226]

comment removed

[Lovey80]

Caster you really don't get it do you.

The same equations that had them come up with the 400+ton Rec Take are the same ones that were put into the model that had them come up with a Biomass of less than 40% of unfished levels. If this figure is wrong and it likely is wrong then there is a bloody good chance that the Biomass figure is wrong also.

[Si]

Phill,

just thought of something Re: this post. Not sure why it didn't register the first time.

If that figure is in fact accurate. Am I right in thinking that the average size of Recreationaly caught snapper would be between 35 and 40cm guessing on those weights?

If so that would mean that the number of say 40cm plus Snapper being caught by Rec Anglers must be so insignificant as to raise the average KG of fish above that say 2kg mark?

If the above two assumptions are close to correct that must mean a HUGE portion of recreationaly caught snapper must be under 40cm right? like 95%?

Interesting this one.

Yeah you are probably right I’m guessing. It’s a bit of a no brainer really though. In terms of individual numbers, most fisheries that sustain a fair degree of fishing pressure show limited variability in size classes and the majority of the catch taken often exhibit a size around the minimum size length in hard fished areas. It’s actually an indicator of a fishery that does receive a fair bit of fishing pressure. Well it’s apparent to me in the bay but this could be due to a lack of fishing skill or luck on my part.
I might as well throw my two cents for what its worth. I’m not up with all this like some of you, so go easy on me if I say something wrong or you don’t like. My opinion is that the 70-90 dollar fee with a TAC they are proposing to introduce in the first two options is excessive. Actually hugely excessive particularly for the management of one species (excluding pearlies and trag cos they don’t really mention this in detail). It’s like they know this and are trying to siphon people into making a decision tailored to what they actually want and not what the stakeholders want, where people may reluctantly have to choose option 3 or 4 with the closed season. I’m not really in favour of any option if the data is actually not representative. Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to pay a very very small fee and abide by a TAC along with all the other fees I pay through rego, environmental levees ecetera but the amount is way to high. I think this is a sign of things to come in fisheries management with a user pay scheme and it’s scary. Imagine fifteen years down the track and we have about five license fees to pay for any particular vulnerable species where it becomes an administrative headache, keeping log books ecetera. You cannot expect the average bloke who has many other things to worry about like job, kids, wife to do this on a consistent basis. It’s not going to work and I think they know this which is why they want us to choose to a closed season by default.

[caster226]

comment removed

[Lucky_Phill]

Phill,

just thought of something Re: this post. Not sure why it didn't register the first time.

If that figure is in fact accurate. Am I right in thinking that the average size of Recreationaly caught snapper would be between 35 and 40cm guessing on those weights?

If so that would mean that the number of say 40cm plus Snapper being caught by Rec Anglers must be so insignificant as to raise the average KG of fish above that say 2kg mark?

If the above two assumptions are close to correct that must mean a HUGE portion of recreationaly caught snapper must be under 40cm right? like 95%?

Interesting this one.

yep, that'd be about right. Let's not forget, the figures are " rubbery " to start with.

But the simple maths Rec take tonnage ( DPI&F figures ) divided by 2009 Status Report ' average size caught ( DPI&F figures ) equals a number of fish taken.

Don't know about 95% being 35 - 40, but I would say pretty close.

DPI&F reckon there are about 7 - 8000 snapper fishos ( they may even only go once a year ??? )..

Pretty hard to do the sums with very rubbery figures, but i prefer to talk in numbers, rather than Bio-Mass. I know I haven't counted the fish

I have done the sums before on Bio-Mass and will do a little one again here.


area A ( square kilometers ) has a Snapper Bio-Mass of 1,000 tons .

Scenario 1.

Average size of Snapper in that area is 5 kgs.... = 200,000 fish.. ( roughly )

Scenario 2.

Average size of Snapper in that area is 1.4kgs... = 715,000 fish... ( roughly )

You see, the Bio-Mass is the same, but NUMBERS are way different. To me, that tells two very different stories.

One must ask themselves, would I rather fish in a 200,000 or 715,000 fishery ?

OR, at first glance..... one fishery looks thin and the one healthy... trouble being, if you look at it through the Bio-Mass formula, there would appear NO problem or issues or in fact, I believe it could ( above scenario ) give a false impression of the fishery stock.

There are many variables to consider as well.

Folks fishing inside the bay get busted up all the time by bigger fish as they are fishing light gear, the C & R folks have a big impact ( they C & R and Not take, with DPI&F figures for TAKE only..... shit, C & R guys could be catching 1,000 snapper a year and releasing them... this is not taken into account when doing the sums.... = rubbery figures ), people lose big fish beside the boat and yes, there are the guys that will bag on 5 fish at 5kgs plus, you have good days and bad... then there is the water quality.. IMO. pushing bay snapper out wider, therefore falsely creating a " situation ' inside the bay = fish are not there problem is no fish.. that's crap... fish moved away but they are still around... ????? So that situation develops into the bay fisho saying fish are thin, but the offshore brigade saying plenty ( and BTW, pro line guy from sunnie coast is having best season for years )

Don't even get me started on the millions of juveniles being killed by trawl methods inside Moreton Bay.

Cheers Phill
.
.
.
.
.
.

[Lovey80]

Phill,

the reason I asked the question was not so much the tonnage ot take issues that had me confused because lets face it we have flogged them to death on that one.

But if in fact the SEQ Rec Angler takes 90-95% of his fish in the 35-40cm range then how on earth can Fisheries claim that raising the size limit to 40 or 45cm only create a 14% reduction in take? If even 90% of this supposed 400t being caught by Rec Anglers are in the 35-40cm bracket........... By simply making the minimum size 40cm should mean that immediately the take the Following year is cut to 40t. Thats not a 14% reduction in take thats a 90% reduction in take.

I know that sounds drastic and also highlights the dodgy figures. I also understand that after a few years that a large majority of those fish that were previously being caught and now were being returned would become back into the caught catgory just at a larger size. They have had many more chances to spawn, the offspring are being spawned by a larger portion of larger fish, more are being spawned as the larger fish spawn more eggs etc and of course the Rec Angler take tonnage will start to spike up again = increasing the sustainable yeild. Or as DPI-F like to classify their job:

The Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (DPI&F) seeks to maximise the economic potential of Queensland’s primary industries on a sustainable basis

If all of these asumptions are even close to correct this has to be a fantastic argument for Size and Bag limit changes to be integrated into the Snapper Stock rebuild.

[Lucky_Phill]

It's sort of relative.

when the minimum size was 30 cms the average size of rec take snapper was .9kg ( 900gms ).

Apparently the second last stock assessment had the average at 1.2kgs, but as we know.... rubbery figures. !

Unfortunately an ' average ' is used. This in itself gives false impressions.

Say, if you were one of the 10% of fishos that went out once a month ( maybe more in winter etc ) and bagged or got 3 fish at 5 - 8kg fish every trip... you're average fish is 6.5kgs !! ??? ( say 15 trips a year x 3 @6.5kgs equals 292kgs of Snapper..... ! )

Ol'e mate in his 3.9 stessl hits waters off Wello Point and does same amount of trips, but only gets 3 fish at 1.2kgs for his trips.... ( say 15 trips a year x 3 @1.2 equals 54kgs.

Once or twice a year guy nails 2 fish a trip for 1.6 average. His average year is 6.4kgs.

So to say an average weight is very misleading at best.

Then one day, in the Grand Hotel at Cleveland, ole mates “ offshore “ and “ twice a year “, gets talking. Inshore guy reckons snapper are Rats ass, and offshore mate will argue that it’s great.

AND as pointed out, commercial line guys are still hitting their quota, so THEY are having no issues……………… apparently.

BUT, the people that are employed to manage the fishery, have to have some sort of formula, starting point, basis to assist in making assumptions and decisions. Without ideal levels of input data, any results will be dogey.

IMO. If the Snapper ( RRFF ) fishery were left as it is, a vast improvement would be seen over the next couple of years, given the current weather / climate events.

Having said that, I would like to see a good and workable management system in place. A system that is well researched, transparent and provides all stakeholders with a feeling of confidence for the future of the fishery.

That system, IMO, must be a co-management arrangement between all stakeholders and the department overseeing the RRFF fishery. The system must be free of political influence and should also be represented by ratio of stakeholder strength. Further, although I dislike the interference from Government, Recreational Fishing in Queensland should have it’s own portfolio. At the very least, it should be withdrawn from the same department as the commercial stakeholders and possibly placed under the guidance of “ Tourism “ ? Just a thought !!!!!


Cheers Phill
.
.
.
.
.
.

[Lovey80]

Thanks Phill,

I agree based on our current Government set up that Rec Angling in every way shape and form deserves it's own portfolio. However I would be hypocritical in being loud about this because I believe in a minimalist government to cut the cost of governing and hence taxes on the masses. Adding another minister in there is the opposite of that.

Back onto the average size topic.

I understand what you are saying with all of that. But the fact still remains that if the "average" size per fish (in the rubbery data) is significantly less than 2kg, any one with any statistics back ground could understand that if the smallest fish taken is 1.2kg (35cm) and the average is 1.6kg by sheer weight of numbers in the 1.2kg to 1.6kg bracket must be a hugely staggering majority. Being that fish grow up to 6-10kg in size in our area must mean that the amount of fish above the say 2kg mark must be biblically dwarfed by the sheer numbers below the 1.6kg mark to give us an average size of 1.6kg

Ok so we agree the figures are rubbery but the scientists don't. What I want to know is based on this how is it that the "TAKE" could only be reduced by 14% going by the same rubbery data?

Big Deez or someone help me out here. These guys are all PHD's so obviously very smart people. What is it that this simpleton is missing in this equation?

Cheers

Chris

[Jono_SS]

Lovey80, I'll have a quick go....

Fisheries staff measure lots of snapper at lots of boat ramps during the year. Plus some people donate snapper frames. At the end of the year there is a "reasonable" picture of the lengths of snapper being caught by recreational fishers (see attached graph).

From the data you can estimate the average length of snapper being caught. That's interesting, but not a particularly useful bit of information on its own. But you can also look at the potential impact a change in minimum legal length might have by working out how many fish were measured during the year below that length (e.g. 40 cm limit would have reduced the numer of fish retained by recreational fishers by x%)

If you want to look at that potential impact on the retained catch in terms of weight (e.g. 40 cm limit would have reduced the weight of the retained catch of recreational fishers by y%), instead of numbers of fish, then you need to know about the weight of each snapper being caught. Fisheries didn't weigh all the fish measured (lots were frames so a bit on the light side!), but there is a known relationship between length and weight of snapper. Yes there is variation in this relationship, as each fish does not sit exactly "on the line", but it is probably a fairly tight realtionship as it is with most species (barra comes to mind as an obvious one with lots of variation because of its obesed fw v's racing sw shape! ). If you estimate the weight of every snapper that was measured, then you can work out the average weight of snapper that were retained and also what % reduction there would have been in the total weight retained under different scenarios (e.g. different minimum legal lengths).

An interesting point to keep in mind is that because the relationship between length and weight is exponential, rather than a straight line, you can't easily swap average lenght and average weight. "The estimated weight of the average length snapper" is different to the "length of the average weight snapper"!

Average weight of a retained snapper is also useful if you want to convert numbers of fish retained (e.g. estimated using phone surveys/diaries etc) into total weight retained.

That's my attempt at explaining how the 14% might have been worked out.

cheers.

Jono

[BigE]

Step 1 in any consultation exercise is devide and conquer.
Step 2 is never give light to any option that can provide a specific data based out come. (if it can be measured for you it can also be measured against your position should the data change which it often does)
Step 3 seize the opportunity to introduce change when resistance is at it's weakest.

The whole exercise is a lie unless one critical piece of data is known. without that one piece of data the whole equation will always have a negitive or reducing answer regardless of the true or false science invovled ( a very neat trick indeed. imagine if you could apply this approach to wages standard of living etc ) the question that are being asked and the pro's and con's of side of the arguement really dont mean anything at all and will little to no effect on the result because the only important piece data will never see the light of day........ and that piece of data is????

The tipping point. the figure is fish nett tonnage or what ever measure you wish to put on it that will indicate a increase in allowable catch ( however you wish to measure that ) with out the tipping point figure the answer to the equation will ALWAYS be less, less for rec's less for pro's, less for charter operators. make no mistake the change drivers behind this direction are powerful and smart and have a very well constructed position that is defendable no matter what the outcome is. It is a very desireable political position to be in.

feel free to comment anyway you like to my post I only ask one favour. if you think my position is incorrect, wrong or invalid in any way.
Tell me and everyone esle the tipping point. At what figure will anybody (rec , pros or charters ) be able to increase the allowable take. without that figure the whole process is a sham, it can only have one outcome.

BigE