Andy your sounding like bit of a hypocrite now what you are asking is similar to saying prove that god doesn't exist. You know both can't be done. The people that are asking for proof of Rec catch and proof of stocks are NOT trying to impose something on someone elses life style. They don't have to prove anything!
Democracy: Simply a system that allows the 51% to steal from the other 49%.
Lies, damn lies and statistics..........bulls#it baffles brains..........mind games..........
Unfortunately government has the power to impliment whatever it likes, and what it likes more than anything is to increase its' chance of re-election...........
It is said that people get the Gov't they deserve; I reckon that's a very harsh call but definitely time to give this mob (and ours in NSW) the flick.........
You know damn well that we have sat in the government offices looking over the data that they have provided.Originally Posted by Lovey80
However, all the experts on ausfish disagree with it, yet not one single one of them can come up with a single shred of scientific data to refute the claims.
And to top it off, when you get the likes of dayoo working his ring out to come up with solutions, he just cops a flogging on here from the experts.
So, like I said. Put up or shut up. Everyone remains silent utill there is an issue, then then they expect everything to be reversed because they dont like it. Next time you are asked to provide data to fisheries, then do it, and do it honestly. Not doing so is going to end up exactly with the issue you have now.
For those who think the snapper closure is motivated by greens, they you are miles off the mark. It actually started when the gold coast charter operators complained that they were unable to catch snapper any longer.
Not right, a hyporcrite does the opposite to what they preach.
I have seen the science behind this. If I dont agree with it, then it is my job to provide scientific evedence to refute the claims. Thats what science is all about.
andy it's not up to anyone on ausfish to produce better scientifically sound data
its highly irrelevant that people making guesses and speculations about catch rates are just as un-rigorous as the fisheries data. you're right technically, but in terms of the bigger picture it's completely and utterly irrelevant.
the data used by fisheries has already been highlighted as inaccurate and uncertain by scientific independent review
from that point, it's now necessary (in order to achieve a fair outcome for all anyway) that more meaningful data collection takes place by fisheries.
it's not up to ausfish members to go out and get scientifically sound data to refute fisheries claims, because they've already been refuted scientifically.
can you see where i'm coming from? arguing that the speculations and guesses bounding around about catch rates is less scientifically sound than fisheries data is simply pointless and irrelevant to the bigger picture
How can you say it's your job to provide scientific evidence to refute the claims. Your an electrician not a scientist. If Fisheries QLD don't have the funds to do a proper assessment how is anyone else suppose to do a proper assessment? You don't need your own evidence to know that this stock assessment was not done with consistant data collection. It's your job to tell them you don't accept the assessment on those grounds and to push them to implement those measures ( Rec Log books) and then do another assessment.
Andy I want what you want ( Rec log books ) so they can't pull this crap on us in the future. Also don't stuff around with a RRFF log book. Make us record all catches taken for all species that way we head off another farce on another species in the future.
The point of all this is to make the point here and now that Rec Anglers will not accept a half arsed attempt at science if restrictions are going to be forced on us based on it. It isn't about restrictions so much as it's about us wanting our fishery managed in a better manor.
Cheers
Chris
Democracy: Simply a system that allows the 51% to steal from the other 49%.
But what is a Rec log book going to prove exactly? It will only go to prove how many fish are pulled from the ocean!
Is it going to take into account how good of a fisherman you are for a certain species, amount of time and effort to catch those x number of fish, amount of kms travelled, what species you were targeting, if the fish were hungry or not, baits that were being used in order to catch species x????
And at the end of the day, the big question is... How many fish are in the ocean??? No one can accuarately calculate this!!!!
So what will the log book achieve? Well it will allow fisheries to say you are taking x amount of tonnes of species x and we will make up a figure for the unfished biomass which suits them and can prove the species in question is overfished!
Hence why the science, is not realy a science!! Its just formula's to fit the desired outcome which is predetermined, which any one with half a brain can do!
The whole thing is a joke, started by a lazy charter operator who had flogged the living daylights out of his spots day in and day out with no regard to the long term implications of his fishing practises and then he goes and cry's poor!!!
Nearly every Rec fisho I know fishes in a much more sustainable matter than that, anyone knows if they flog their own spots then they risk their not being any fish there in the future be it short or long term.
How do you know its half arsed science? Have you seen it? We are yet to see anyone else come up with anything better?
And if Rec anglers want better data then its about time they started providing it rather than whinging there is none. How do you expect any scientist to get data on you if you refuse to provide it?
I have kept quiet on this topic until now. I knew it was coming after sitting up Bridgit Kerrigans office 6 months ago. I also ranted 6 months ago about rec anglers not providing honest data to fisheries. I also knew everyman and his dog would whinge about it when it came. Rec anglers are just us much to blame for this as the government, probably even more so.
BTW. If you want ways of providing data, then contact me personally or send an email to infofish.
Thats why they use charter boats at the gold coast for there science. you load a boat up with 10 tourists who cant fish very well with skippers who cant put the boat over a reef and the cpue fisheries like to use gives a picture that fish stocks are low
the gold coast fishing has picked up a lot this yr anyway, fisheries have jumped the gun on there data it could be another 5 years before a proper estimate can be made
I will proved an estimate of fish stocks. If no one is catching anything, its likley there is no fish there (for whatever reason).
When you look at the data on catch rates, you can usually map it reasonably accurately to events such as seasonal variation, temp, etc or it can actually show a steady decline in stocks over a period of time. Or vice versa you can accurately predict when species are going to come on the bite.
I have seen data from catch rates over long periods and you would be surprised what can be ascertained from it.
andy, once again, read the independent review
it's half assed science because the most supportive document they found, listed substantial uncertainties across the board and any scientific paper that recieved a review like that in the non politicised "real" scientific world would be shot back for re-submission in an instant.
there is absolutely no way that stock assessment would get published in a journal with that amount of uncertainty outlined in the review.
Yes rec anglers have to provide data but an honest system of collection has to be implemented first, and that much is not our job, but the job of those paid to manage the fisheries
cheers
Dan
I'd be quite happy to be fill out a log book of every catch I make. wouldn't be many entries in it, but I'd be happy to submit catch data.
A catch log would give a clear indication of catch rates, not biomass, but the catch rates could then be associated with climatic conditions, heavy rain seasons, droughts, etc, etc, and the catch rates should ebb and flow in line with climatic influences. It would also remove the problem of a few whingey charter operators killing their spots and then an assumption being made that there are no other fish being caught elsewhere.
A log book will never be able to estimate fish stocks. It can only give clear evidence of the harvest rates.
I think recreational catch statistics would be a good thing, but only if done for all species caught, but must be completed by all fisherman, regardless of being pro, charter, or recreational.
If statistics began to show steadily falling catch rates, with consistant or increasing fishing effort, (but disregarding climatic events known to reduce harvest) then it would be clear science evidence of overfishing.
log books for catch of all species, by all stakeholders, would be a brilliant thing - it would provide evidence that could not be refuted by anyone from any side of the argument.
already supplied fisheries with data as have many others. andy you need to get your head out of the hole and realise many others have beaten you to this idea years ago.
Dont for a second think that I beleive that the science is well presented, but the guys doing the research are only working with what data they have.
Not having a dig at the guys who supply data, more the people who get on here an incessently whinge about it yet have done, and continue to do nothing about it. You ask anyone that is activly involved in standing up for rec anglers rights and they will agree that rec anglers in general are lazy bunch of whingers when it comes to protecting their sport.
sure andy, and what we're saying is the data they have is rubbish, and they need to implement a proper and sound data collection method that goes past surveys?
how come we don't have logbooks etc? no doubt there are some who couldnt be arsed helping to supply data but there are plenty that are willing as well, and that has to be better data than what they're trying to cough up restrictions based on now.
cheers
Dan
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote