Chris,Originally Posted by Lovey80
I don't personally support option 2 in the RIS ( I prefer option 1 with no fee) but only expressed my opinion as to what I thought (guess) would happen given that Fisheries may be looking for a soft option.
Cheers
Barry
I agree with Keith that now we have moved on from the personal attacks to addressing the substantive issues, we probably need to split this thread and start a new one.
I will start that by copying my post about closures and starting a new thread in this section about "Snapper Closures and Options"
Grant
Note to self: Don't argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience....
It's all shit!!
I will start by giving credit where it is due, Keith did ring me and leave a message (I have been fishing for the last few days and tend not to answer my phone) and I will get back to him early next week.
As far as I stand I do not agree with his ideas, in fact I largely oppose them, but at least he has the conviction to be open to dialogue (note: we will never agree)...
I just wish everybody would stop to bring in compromise, it's not necessary and everyone is playing into their hands. For instance, a $90 fee gets waived... whooopdeybloodychook!!! They are still shafting everybody, they see this as compromise. No compromise, there is no reason for it, a proper scientific review that takes into account their stupid green zones and legal size increases of a few years ago, give it time, get a proper result.... then act accordingly!! I will somewhat support any outcome if it is for real..
Just my 2 cents worth
What is going on now is scandalous
Yes It is off subject for the thread but.
The one thing we MUST focus on is the conspicuous uncertainty of the science.
Yess we know with reasonable acccuracy what the current and recent catches of the pro and charter sectors are, but everthing else has an enormous level of error.
And when the claimed largest impact sector ( recreational) has an error level so large as to be not quantifyable.
The notion of management measures that assume some level of certainty are simply foolish.
Now remember folks, the QLD fisheries department has no money for nuthin', they are skint, their budjet is fully alocated, they have reduced the number of inspectors because they can not afford them all... and with no prospect of increase in funding with this state government.
So don't expect any improved science anytime soon, and don't expect any form or recreational catch recording to come without a cost to the angler.
The public have hammered the government of fees on this manner, so don't expect any improvement in rec catch data any time soon.
SO...the only sensible solution is one that is conservative and does not rely on of the data being accurate.
Remember too, because under federal legeslation QLD must conduct a review and if it suspects there is the threat to the spicies it must act.
and as I have said before, much that it pains me, I see no other option than some sort of closure for everybody....and the current 6 week closure is a reasonable and conservative option, and at a time where all sectors can go chasing pelagic spicies.
You can discuss , restoring virgin biomass and catch shares and all the other stuff that are simply fools erands because none of the data that all those other arguments are bassed upon are viable due to the information being prodigeously unreliable.
The government has presented options that are deliberatly unpalatable, agressive and provocative.....the single and universal message should be that none of them are acceptable.
If all the sectors went to the government and said... give us the current 6 week total closure and you do some better science when you can get the funding... I recon they would go for it.
Remember this matter is a thorn in their side and it is costing the department $$$$ every day, $$$$ they simly do not have.
An agreed option that satisfies their federal management and reporting options will look pretty damn good to the chair polishers.
Now remember too, that if there was the political will and the funds available..it would take at least 1 to 2 years for any new programe or research or reporting to come into place and at least another 2 to 5 years for any meaningfull data to come from it.
This issue has dragged on now for over 2 years in its current form and the issue has been known and hardly managed for 2 to 5 years prior to that (other states have changed their snapper management ages ago)
So what ever we cop, it looks like 5 years before anything more inteligent comes to light, by which time the next compulsory review will be due
So the current 6 week ban over 5 years seems to be far more reasonable that the other options, to then be reviewed.
cheers
Its the details, those little details, that make the difference.
Why is that reasonable mate???
It's another compromise. They KNOW the commercial catch, they KNOW the charter sector catch, and they have based their closures on a guesstimate of the recreational catch. We all know that guesstimate is grossly flawed and you are kidding yourself if you think it ain't.
My belief is that if you couldn't catch a bag of snapper on 15 Feb, chances are you cant now. The interim closure will not have achieved anything substantial, it has just contributed to a horrible waste of quality fish that have been released suffering barotrauma.
This whole thing is a knee jerk reaction to a perceived problem. There is no problem, snapper are still around in plagues, but I think they are getting smarter so fishing tactics need to evolve to catch them.
I personally think that a six week closure is a delusional dream. They will not stop at that, then soon enough the federal government will start their push for a mass marine park in the Coral Sea. It's a scary thought.....
It is reasonable because the precautionary principle is enshrined in federal law.
If state fisheries SUSPECT, that a spiecies is overfished they are bound by law to do something about it.
Because there is no solid proof either way that snapper are or arent threatened... so they must take some measure to reduce preasure... federal law requires it.
Your idea that any closure will have an immediate effect is ( sorry) ignorant and short sighted.
The point of the closure is to reduce effort averaged over time.....for any measure to have any effect it has to be in place over an extended period.....like 5 or 10 years....what ever measure has to be assessed over several breeding cycles minimum
Remember the department is required to review various fisheries issues every 5 years or so.....and I seem to remember it taks a snapper at least 5 years to achieve breeding maturity.
What realy is rediculous...is the aim of restoring virgin biomass level at all especially in the short term.
Consider that Virgin biomass would have been 150 years ago( white settlement in moreton bay 1824, how do they expect to restore virgin biomass over a few decades.
Sorry but the truth is that there is no way the government is going to accept that snapper stocks are not depleated..........sorry that is the way it is.
The best we can hope for is a moderate response, one that is effective regardless of the data and that treats all sectors equatibly.
The 6 week closure is far from a knee jurk reaction......it is an act of despiration by a department that is preasured by the stake holders, has no quality data and no prospect of better anytime soon..... and must....absolutely must, under federal law act according to the precautionary principle and take some sort of action.
cheers
Its the details, those little details, that make the difference.
Where did I say that the closure would have an immediate effect???
The six week closure has achieved zip, nudda, nothing. Its just sending good people broke....
As for this so called precautionary priciple, well that just opens the door for them to do whatever they want, they just have to 'suspect' something. Aint it handy that all these suspicions lately are pandering to green agendas and can be fixed by lock outs and taxes.
This has been an informative thread for me. I speak to a lot of 10% fishers who catch the majority of fish, as well as many of the 90% fishers who catch very few fish (the casual fishers), and the general opinion of the latter seems to be they see nothing wrong with closures during the spawning season if the goal is to protect the fishery. The views of some of the former seem to be somewhat different, though again, many of the 10% types I speak to do not have a problem with a closure, provided it applies to everyone (all sectors) and is implemented at the right time of year to have maximum benefit to recruitment.
Now people can talk about the inaccuracy of the science, but by simply looking at changes in nursery habitat quality and quantity since european settlement, it would be a miracle if we had even 40% of virgin snapper stocks left. So while there is uncertainty, remember, the error bars go both ways, there could be 60% left, or 20% left. ie. snapper could well be in serious trouble notwithstanding the fact you can still catch heaps of little ones, that is because you have a GPS and a wicked sidescan sounder to find them, and braid, fluorcarbon and soft plastics infused with attractants to catch them - you are more efficient than you ever were at catching them. So its hard to tell either way. Assuming a "worst case scenario" 3 month closure is made, if the timing of the closure is right, and the fish are left alone at the right time of year to do their business, there will be a recruitment signal generated that can be picked up by the fisheries monitoring - we have more snapper- a situation that could be taken advantage of at a future date with a more viable fishery that might even benefit from the loosening of regulations if the stocks rebound (although they may not if the real problem with recruitment is nursery habitat degradation).
The way I see it, no one bitches about the barra spawning closures. The fact is, temporary closures do not limit recreational participation rates (unlike green zone lockouts that do), as there are other target species , and C&R is always an option. So the problems here relate to barotrauma of fish released from depth, and this would be another area where education re: release weights and more research appears necessary.
Looking at it from a bigger picture view, the snapper issue in SE QLD is one of the region having to "grow up" to meet a fisheries management issue that has been encountered numerous times all over the world. The fisheries management solutions being presented by government are mostly well established, and most have been proven to work successfully in other parts of the world. I understand why some sectors might be worried, but at another level I wonder what all the fuss is about. This thread presents the full microcosm of human behaviour when again in reality its should be all about the fish, and the alternative is they place a whopping big green zone out there (which although it might not do anything else, at least it will fix the barotrauma problem). It's important for the sectors to keep the big picture in view and resolve the bickering for the benefit of the fishery, don't tempt the government into fixing the problem using the easy option by putting in the big green zone. To me a temporary closure, applied to everyone at the right time of year, followed by more research, education and close monitoring of the fishery for a recruitment signal in the hope that it shows its on the right track to recovery, would be the sensible way forward.
as posted in another thread in "whiting trawling in the bay" this whole issue makes me sick to the core , IF THE GOVERNMENT WAS SERIOUS ABOUT PRESERVATION OF A SPECIES THE TRAWLING IN THIS SO CALLED DELICATE ENVIRONMENT WOULD CEASE.
other states and territorys have implemented a very successfull buy back scheme , even helped trawler operators and netters with the pursuit of other commercial interests ie establish other aquculture aspects such as pond farming of fish and or prawns.
and before anyone says "i bet you eat prawns and hate being over charged" i do indeed like them(and farmed ones at that) but i dissagree with the raping of the bay that is happening RIGHT NOW by some irresponsible operators(not all) . i have observed in broad daylight trawlers with their nets down only 100meters from the redcliffe jetty oblivious to the YELLOW ZONES THAT DO EXIST across the peninsula, even rang fisheries a few times and they basically told me that i need to be right beside them with video of their rego and a gps cord before they would act , when i replied that i would probably get sunk by the scum if i went that close to which they said "oh i doubt that would ever happen",,,,,,,, yeah right.
OLD BOOT
you wrote
(Consider that Virgin biomass would have been 150 years ago( white settlement in moreton bay 1824, how do they expect to restore virgin biomass over a few decades.)
imagine the rapid increase in ALL FISH STOCKS in the bay and surrounding waterways(creeks/rivers) if all bottom trawling nets and fixed nets were bannished, maybe then the 90%ers might5 have a shot at a bag.
There has been way to much personal attack from fisho to fisho(trawlers are not fishos) on this site and it is the reason why lots of good people rarely post on here of late. i don't post many reports in the relevent sections anymore because i believe the more these green groups and their labor cronies see evidence of fish captures they will use it as propaganda against us in future, so i am not a fan of "the tarp of death" or "full esky shots" .
I FISH FOR FUN, FOOD AND FREINDSHIP
Cheers Swano
We here lots of talk about what is done elsewhere in the world....but the fisheries department seem to say on the one hand the their computer models developed and supoesed proved with data from other parts of the world are valid...... But thay fail to acknowledge that very simple measures proven in other states can do nothing else but work.
The NT has removed trawling and netting from many of their rivers and streams, and the fish population have boomed.
a couple of the southern states have banned trawling and or shell dredging in inshore areas and experienced considerable improvement in the fishery.
Oh yeh......stopping trawling in the bay would improve soo many things...and there are commercial alternatives.
I have a old Jack Absalom video where he goes fishing with a pro fishermen mate, who has changed from netting to line caught, for whiting.
This bloke seems to be happy with the arrangement, because of the much improved stocks and the better price he is getting for less and bigger, better quality fish.
Rodger Harison and Vick McCrystal have been pushing for closure of inshore netting and trawling in certain areas for decades.
There are commercial alternatives, but they don't play to the larger enterprise.
As for, restoring the virgin biomass, even if you could estimate what it was in a few decades is still no more than a dream...we have had commercial fishing in the bay from very shortly after white settlement and untill the beginning of the 20th century pretty well unregulated.... and there have been huge habitat modifications.
As far as needing new gear to catch undersized snapper.......rubbish......any donkey can catch undersized snapper in the bay with very little skill, the same old tackle and no electronics.
Again fisheries push the idea of improved angler technology, but they will not accept that snapper are getting smarter too.
Fish and birds are very similar in their habits.....so do what do you recon are smarter........snapper or magpies.
cheers
Its the details, those little details, that make the difference.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
