Power of a fish research inspector

[honda900]

Matt,

You have assumed I didnt know the size and quantity of fish that was on my boat.

"cynical about the data collected"

Data collection, that has been the focus of this disussion or the lack of data to be precise, you guys are making to many assumptions without enough fact.

Until the data collection is fixed, in a way that is open/transparent and is true and accruate, fisheries as an organisation will continue to be percieved as ineffective and untrustworthy.

I am not suprised about the lack of responses, fisheries have proven themselves untrustworthy (not you in particular). I will not be attempting to organise a group, as I am not the one who has put fisheries in this postion, it is fisheries that needs to take it upon themselves to change public opinion.

Regards
Honda.

[Captain Incredible]

Data collection, that has been the focus of this disussion or the lack of data to be precise, you guys are making to many assumptions without enough fact.

Until the data collection is fixed, in a way that is open/transparent and is true and accurate, fisheries as an organisation will continue to be percieved as ineffective and untrustworthy. (Honda 900)

Good point HONDA. And to get on to a recurring bandwagon which has NOT been picked up positively or even at all by Ausfishers, wouldn't the responsibility to ensure that recreational catches were adequately & accurately recorded be a joint responsibility of a rec sector "peak body"? Especially if this "peak body" which is paid $150,000 plus by Goverment, & collects an unpublished amount from fees from alligned rec fishing groups? And has the capacity to influence who will govern us after the next election?

In the end you can blame "Government". But if the same "Government" has funded a rec fishing body to help it gather data, to dispel myths & to ensure that rec anglers are adequately represented, then why are you not throwing rocks at this organisation as well? The corollary is that if this funding for a rec "peak body" is not delivering measurable outcomes then take their funding off them & put it where it might do some good.

This theory of "you can't count what we catch so you can't do anything to us" is just absolute dinosaur shit. And bashing the pros is yesterday's strategy, especially in Fisheries like Snapper when the major slayer is rec anglers.

We need to be in partnership with Fisheries Mangement to ensure that our fisheries (please note the ownership) are managed sensibly, sustainably & transparently as a co-managed shared responsibility. But then I still believe in the Tooth Fairy also.........................

I don't believe that Matt et al have got the science right yet. But fully understanding that "garbage in is garbage out" the recreational charter recreational recreational stakeholders of the recreational fishery as recreational anglers under current legislation are ensuring that recreational charter recreationals are providing regular & accurate data to the LTMP. (AS RECREATIONAL DATA)

Hopefully the scientists will be more fully informed the next time around.

[PinHead]

I do not believe there is any accurate way of data collection other than someone at every ramp for every minute and it is mandatory to show them your catch. Plus..they would also need records of fish returned.Other than that...forget it. The data will only ba a very small indication and then probablilites etc will have to take over. Catch cards are not the answer as most will not fill them in or return them. I do not know what the answer is...and a supposed rec body representing all rec anglers is a good idea but the majority of rec anglers would not have even heard of Sunfish or any other rec body that may be started. Most rec anglers go fishing for purely that..recreation. They have enough regualtions in their normal lives to not want to be burdened with more when they want to escape and relax.

[Lucky_Phill]

From a personal point of view.

No matter what amount of catch rate / data we can or cannot provide, the modeling that is used to determine any management regime' is flawed. IMO. The modeling depends on a virgin bio-mass being a known quantity. I have sat down with a few in FQ including Alex and I am still no where near convinced of a known virgin bio-mass.

I am not saying they are wrong or right, all I am saying is to the layman ( rec fisho ), a data set that is a known must be quantified.

Other non-entered data sets into current modeling ( last 10 years ) is climate... NOT Climate change or whatever the freaking flash term is for a new tax, I am talking about the last 10 years or so we were held under the El Nino effect and this year and probably next year will see the La Nina return and with that weather pattern, an increase in fish stocks, even taking into account the increase in effort etc.


I am a firm believer in this and when the weather effects are not taking into account, the situation can look grim. Funny thing is, catch rates / data only tells the story of the catch rate, it does not........ IMO...... reflect accurately the status of the stock. By far the most accurate quantifiying of a fish stock is the commercial records.

Just this year, Spanish Mack pro's have stated that it's been the best year for the last 10 or more. Thing is, does this directly relate to the bio-mass or recruitment, or the shift in spatial activities ( ocean temp / current ) associated with weather ? ( El Nino v La Nina ).

Anectodal evidence does account for something in my mind. How many times have we heard boat loads of fishos gettin SWA, but a couple of guys bagging out. Is that a reflection on the territory, bait, bio-mass, angler skill or what. Boat ramp survey finds 20 boats caught FA and 1 bagged............. what does the model say about that situation ? Way too many variables to contemplate.

I also believe that FQ researchers and scientists are doing their very best for the fishery and the fishing community with the funding they have, the terms of reference they have, the infrastructure they have and the data at their disposal. IMO........... it is not enough to quantify the status of any fishery.... unfortunately.

I'll pop in one day... Matt and Co. I do like the work you do and am always open to information sharing.

Regards

Phill
.
.
.

[PinHead]

Honda
I won't tread on Jono_SS's toes but as know the Assessment and Monitoring team monitor bream, whiting, flathead, spanish mackerel, spotted mackerel, grey mackerel, tailor, barra and the rocky reef fish, primarily (but not limited to) pearlies, snapper and teraglin. These are the main recreational targets in Queensland south of Mackay.

One of the reasons I can see that A&M have targeted snapper, pearlies and trag at boat ramps is that they are targeted most by rec anglers. Snapper and pearlies are far and away the most caught, by number, RRFF species by rec anglers. Boat ramp surveys in the past have shown that rec anglers leaving boat ramps target these species most. Charter fishing records show that snapper, trag and pearlies far outweigh the catch of all of the other rocky reef fish put together (99t for snapper, pearlies and trag compared to 34.8t for the remaining RRFF in 2009). Snapper and pearlies also represent about half of all RRFF caught by commercial line fishers in southern QLD.

Secondly, the logistics of gathering data at a boat ramp - you didn't have time to let the Fisheries guys measure your snapper, pearlies and trag, let alone the other species. Isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to say this:

"By capturing the data of all species that I had returned with your RRFF data would have captured the fact that I had more of another species of RRFF fish and not your target band."

and not even let the guys measure the snapper and pearlies you had? If the Fisheries guys are at the ramp, they don't want to hold you up all day, especially a fisher of your capabilities who catches alot of fish. Isn't it better to get excellent data for some species rather than get sketchy data under pressure from the fisher to get home and clean his/her catch, boat, equipment, etc?

Thirdly, A&M not only sample the rec catch but they also gather samples from the charter and commcerial sectors as well. All this from a team of about 10 individuals in southern Queensland. Biological samples are processed in the labs at the Ecosciences Precinct, where length information is recorded and otoliths extracted. These data are then checked and analysed. Otoliths are blocked, sectioned, mounted on a slide, then read by the team under strict protocols. This process takes time.

Again, I ask isn't it better to do a good job on those species that are the most heavily fished, rather than collect information on everything and do a so-so job?

As for your suggestion for an open day. Well how about you get a group of Ausfishers together and come through the Precinct? I have not had a single call or email regarding my earlier invitation. Not one. Again I ask you to give me a call or email (32554229 and matthew.campbell@deedi.qld.gov.au) and organise a time. We have absolutely nothing to hide. I have all sorts of information that will help you get a better grasp of what we do with the information collected by Assessment and Monitoring. I'm sure Jono_SS would also be happy to have a chat to you regarding A&M. Again, the invitation is open to everyone, especially to the people who are obviously cynical about the data collected.

Matt

Matt..I would love to visit sometime ..probably way over my head but I reckon it would be interesting to actually have a look and listen..probably broaden my outlook.

[honda900]

Captain Incredible, Pinhead and Phill,

you all have some valid points.

Sunfish, who are they?? basically they are collecting money for nothing, certainly dont seem to be supporting the rec sector, case in point "scotto".

at the end of the day, fisheries dont really have a true baseline in to start from.

Truthfully I dont think anyone has an exact answer, things change seasonally.

Regards
Honda.

[netmaker]

hi all,
i have found this thread quite interesting, so figured id put in my two bob. i can see valid arguments for and against and have to conclude government policy is to blame. researchers, fisheries and the cops all have what at times would be quite undesirable jobs to do. most of these people are hardworking and honest simply performing their jobs. it is government policy that is flawed. research could be collected in a more thorough method. to me it would make sense to monitor a selected number of ramps around the clock over the full and new moon periods of winter year after year in which case you would have a reasonable baseline simply by comparing the literal numbers caught from those ramps - forget biomass assumptions etc. even simply recording the numbers of other species caught (ignoring extra processing, aging etc) could help identify a species in decline. it is definately in our interests as fishos to look after our stocks for the future so it is also in our interests to help increase the knowledge base of those stocks. whilst we may conclude that the research performed may not be comprehensive enough for our liking you have to agree we cant send these blokes down in the drink to count snapper either. i reckon that flawed data is still probably better than no data. i also have no problems with fisheries blokes or cops either. these guys stop greedy people and idiots from raping the stocks and killing people and themselves. there should be more of em.
said my bit
davo