Time is running out to comment on rules discriminating against NSW holiday fishos

[krill]

Submissions close on 31 August 2013 in relation to the proposed severe tightening of many POSSESSION limits for fish in NSW. In NSW, "bag limits" are defined as "possession limits" so apply to your home fridge/freezer or anywhere else, not just the "bag" you make bring home from a day's fishing. The upcoming review of possession limits is at:

http://www.dpi.nsw.g...nal/info/review

I would implore all holiday or country saltwater fishos to visit the site and provide their opinions on the unviably low proposed possession limits. For instance, it will be illegal to have:

* More than 2 kingfish in possession
* More than 5 snapper in possession
* More than 5 mowies in possession
* More than 5 duskies in possession
* More than 10 sand/tiger flathead in possession

*More than 20 of any type of fish in possession, including species which only grow to small sizes, like school whiting

While many coastal fishos look at these numbers and think "why would anybody need more than 5 snapper a day" they fail to see that most fishos who like to catch and eat their own fish and can only make it to the coast once or twice a year would not bother with the major expense of boats, tow vehicles, fuel, accommodation and tackle if they can only bring home 5 snapper for a whole trip after spending weeks out on the water.

Who has more impact on a stock? A person who goes fishing every two weeks and catches 3-5 snapper an outing (78-130 snapper per year) or a fisho who can only make it to the coast once a year for a couple of weeks and brings home 10 frozen snapper under the existing rules?

In states like Victoria, bag limits are defined as fish in possession "on or near water". This IS NOT the case in NSW. Possession applies anywhere. Yet the discussion document continues to use misleading terms like "daily bag limit" to dupe fishos into agreeing with the changes.

The existing rules already discriminate against holiday or country fishos. The proposed changes will increase the discrimination to the point where going fishing to eat the fish you catch will be a complete waste of time.

At the same time as announcing this review, the NSW fisheries minister moved to allow commercial fishos to net UNLIMITED QUANTITIES of flathead and other species such as mowies. Rec fishos were ropable and the stink caused a backflip, for now. The government has also expanded netting of salmon in circumstances where commercial fishermen are lobbying to "supply large columes of low-cost Australian salmon and yellow-tail mackerel for the Chinese market". In other words, local Australians who want to enjoy and eat their own clean wild caught fish in sustainable ways with their own efforts need to make way for corporate interests who want to sell a product to foreigners who number in the billions. Unbelievable!

The general proposed limit of 20 fish total (there is no such limit at the moment) is another kick in the teeth for holiday fishos. It also makes no ecological/environmental sense either.

Specific limits should apply to specific stocks based on scientific management.

If a 20 fish total possession limit is in place, it will be impossible to go on holiday and have a family feed of small delicacy fish such as:

* Eastern school whiting (which we export frozen by the boxload to Japan)
* Garfish

Who is going to take home 20 school whiting or garfish (which would only be one meal for a family) if it is then illegal to possess a single other fish! These fish are PROLIFIC and sustainable for reccos to eat.

It will be illegal to take 20 school whiting and 2 flathead home frozen for a feed, in circumstances where both species are readily caught, but if you have a big enough boat to get to the shelf it will be legal to catch 2 x 15kg blue eye and still catch another 18 large fish of other species. So what's the management message? Target rarer blue eye rather than sustainable bread and butter fish. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID.

If species need management, manage the species scientifically. Arbitrary combined limits do not achieve any sensible conservation outcome, and as demonstrated, may have the opposite effect and make people target bigger more important breeding fish.

Generally, fisheries management should be on the basis of SCIENCE and not survey. For instance, what is the point in surveying a land based fisho about the possession limit on leatherjackets found in inshore and offshore waters. These fish are in plague proportions, but you would only know that if you had a boat, so what relevance would a non-boat fishos opinion be of the fishery? Indeed, how many members of PETA will be visiting the survey site and pretending to be fishos?

Anyway, rant over. If, like me, you find these proposals offensive and just another big hit on top of all the blows rec fishos are copping like marine parks and supertrawlers get to the review site in the next few days and let them know what (and why) these changes mean to you. But spare a thought for those of us who do not have the luxury of living 10 minutes away from a boat ramp and want to eat fish we catch ourselves as rec fishos have been doing sustainably for the past couple of hundred years. It's our culture under attack.

[PixieAU]

so, what is your proposal then - a person's bag limit is inversely proportional to the number of times they can get to the water??

with your scientific management approach, what bag limits are you proposing instead?

[krill]

I think you are a little confused. Fisheries management proposals come from the Government, not Krill. I am proposing nothing.

The Government is proposing to halve most bag limits in NSW which will have a disproportionately harsh effect on holiday fishos who go for a big fish once or twice a year versus those who live 10 minutes from the boat ramp.

I have used the submission period to tell the Government what I think of their proposals, and I encourage any other holiday fishos to let the Government know what they think as well by 31 July via the online survey.

As for a scientific management approach, this would involve, for instance, conducting scientific research into the particular species in question to determine, inter alia:

(1) stock levels
(2) impacts (eg, commercial, recreational, habitat, pollution, climate change)

and then presenting a well reasoned argument for a particular management change proposal based on the research findings.

Instead we have a silly survey document with no supporting scientific information which asks people if they *feel* we should halve the possession limits on most targeted fish, while simultaneously laxing up commercial fishing regulations.

Luckily for a Government keen on expanding commercial fishing and exports to Asia a lot of fishos do enjoy bidding against themselves without it being demonstrated they are the problem. Guilty until proven innocent.

Bottom line: do you think it is reasonable for a bloke from Albury who has been going down to Narooma for a month holiday each year for the past 20 years to catch 11 tiger flathead, freeze them up and take them home to eat? Do you think it would be reasonable for that bloke to spend a month on the water chasing snapper and take 6 fish home to eat?

I sure as s**t do.

Hopefully I am not alone.

[no chicken tonight]

Rules and limits should only be set to suit sustainability and the majority of anglers. Not the few people who live in Albury, Wagga or Alice Springs!

[rayken1938]

Conversely it would be ok for coastal fishos to go bush for a holiday and rape the freshwater fisheries because they only go once a year or the grey nomads who come to Qld and fill their freezers with barra or whiting whilst enjoying our warm winters.
I think not.
I want my great grandchildren to enjoy the same fishing that I enjoy.
It is not about filling the freezer
Cheers
Ray

[Moonlighter]

Lots of people in NSW apparently are not aware that their current "bag limits" are also "in possession" limits. The Fishing guide on the NsW fisheries website is confusing enough that you could be forgiven for thinking that the daily bag limit is not an in possession limit. But, it is. I have checked with NSW fisheries and am correct. So this is not a new thing.

One thing people also forget is that once back on land, if you have other family or friends with you, the in possession limit means that you can effectively give away yesterday's catch to your family, and go fishing again.

Only when the total number of fish of each species in your group's possession exceeds the bag limit multiplied by the number of people in your group do you have to stop. So, if the bag limit on a fish is say 5, and i have wife and 2 teenagers back at camp, we, as a group of 4, can have a total of 20 of that fish in our possession. Which seems quite reasonable to me.

Same thing applies in Qld.

The other issue is the big reductions n bag limits there. I have seen reports that suggest these limits are not being based on the science of fisheries management and sustainable stocks, but seems be being based on some form of social assessment of what might be reasonable in some person's opinion.

That change is, if it is correct, a very dangerous move. When we leave good fisheries management science and let the social engineers take the reins, then we are really at the mercy of people who make decisions based on emotions and perception, not fact. That would be a very disturbing development. Very disturbing, indeed.

[krill]

Conversely it would be ok for coastal fishos to go bush for a holiday and rape the freshwater fisheries because they only go once a year or the grey nomads who come to Qld and fill their freezers with barra or whiting whilst enjoying our warm winters.

So you think going to the coast, spending two weeks on the water and taking home 11 tiger flatties is "rape" of the ocean?



You must fish in different water than I have fished in for the past 20 years.

Funny, I base my views of fisheries management issues on scientific surveys of stock levels and assessments of who is doing what.

Call me a radical.

[krill]

Lots of people in NSW apparently are not aware that their current "bag limits" are also "in possession" limits. The Fishing guide on the NsW fisheries website is confusing enough that you could be forgiven for thinking that the daily bag limit is not an in possession limit. But, it is. I have checked with NSW fisheries and am correct. So this is not a new thing.

And naturally the confusion encourages people to think they can "bag" a certain number of fish per day. IMO the use of the term "bag" again in the discussion paper is grossly misleading and designed to fool people into believing that they are dealing with a daily bag limit. Pretty low tactics to me.

One thing people also forget is that once back on land, if you have other family or friends with you, the in possession limit means that you can effectively give away yesterday's catch to your family, and go fishing again. Only when the total number of fish of each species in your group's possession exceeds the bag limit multiplied by the number of people in your group do you have to stop. So, if the bag limit on a fish is say 5, and i have wife and 2 teenagers back at camp, we, as a group of 4, can have a total of 20 of that fish in our possession. Which seems quite reasonable to me.

Yes - but I do not think the legal issues are that clear. What if the fish are stored in a single freezer owned or controlled by one person? Who "possesses" them? Do they need to be in separate bags? Labelled with names? What when one or more people are not there doing something else? What when fisheries pay a visit while all the fishers are out on the boat and say to the wife: "how come you have 20 fish X in you possession?".

Law subject to complex enforcement or ambiguity is BAD law. The Victorians seem to be coping fine with their "on or near" water definition of possession.

The other issue is the big reductions n bag limits there. I have seen reports that suggest these limits are not being based on the science of fisheries management and sustainable stocks, but seems be being based on some form of social assessment of what might be reasonable in some person's opinion.

That change is, if it is correct, a very dangerous move. When we leave good fisheries management science and let the social engineers take the reins, then we are really at the mercy of people who make decisions based on emotions and perception, not fact. That would be a very disturbing development. Very disturbing, indeed.

Yep - you have hit the nail on the head. If someone can demonstrate to me that, for instance, kingfish in NSW are being unsustainably fished primarily by recreationals and make a scientific case for a limit of 2 I will be the first one to agree. The fact the process is based on science will mean that further down the track the rules can be revisited according to actual outcomes. IMO the approach taken here is just another general attack on rec fishers.

[rayken1938]

Relax you have another month to ponder.
Cheers
Ray
THE NSW Government has granted a one-month extension for submissions on proposed changes to recreational fishing rules in NSW, including bag and size limits.

The government's discussion paper is on public exhibition until Saturday 31 August 2013. Discussion papers and submission forms are available at most bait and tackle shops and fisheries offices throughout NSW.

It's easy to make a submission on the various options via the online submission form or by post, email or fax... so get onboard and have your say!

Copies of the paper can be found online at www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/reviews/fishingrules

[Moonlighter]

And naturally the confusion encourages people to think they can "bag" a certain number of fish per day. IMO the use of the term "bag" again in the discussion paper is grossly misleading and designed to fool people into believing that they are dealing with a daily bag limit. Pretty low tactics to me.

Agreed. They need to stop using the terms "bag limit" and "daily bag limt" altogether, and call it what it is - an in possession limit.

Yes - but I do not think the legal issues are that clear. What if the fish are stored in a single freezer owned or controlled by one person? Who "possesses" them? Do they need to be in separate bags? Labelled with names? What when one or more people are not there doing something else? What when fisheries pay a visit while all the fishers are out on the boat and say to the wife: "how come you have 20 fish X in you possession?".

Law subject to complex enforcement or ambiguity is BAD law. The Victorians seem to be coping fine with their "on or near" water definition of possession.

You are getting a bit too caught up in the moment here. You have to remember, to even be in your house/tent they would have to have a rasonable suspicion that an offense has been committed, and then the onus of proof is on them to prove it.

Imagine them fronting a magistrate with that - your family werent home and they caught you with 10 fish in your freezer instead of 5! The Magistrate would boot them out faster than they could blink. So the reality is that the situation you have described is really very unlikely.

But if you have 500 fish of that species in your freezer, you will be in big trouble.

The reality is that the only time they will come knocking on your door is if they get a complaint about you "shamateuring" fish for sale, or if they catch you with vastly more fish in your boat and follow you home to check there. Then, if that is proven to be the case, you deserve what they get you for.

Yep - you have hit the nail on the head. If someone can demonstrate to me that, for instance, kingfish in NSW are being unsustainably fished primarily by recreationals and make a scientific case for a limit of 2 I will be the first one to agree. The fact the process is based on science will mean that further down the track the rules can be revisited according to actual outcomes. IMO the approach taken here is just another general attack on rec fishers.

Yes, we must insist on science and fact ruling the roost. One tactic I have done in public forums is to ask them if they will accept anecdotal evidence from me and my mates as the basis for making their decisions. They will say "no", of course.

So I then ask them for the science and evidence behind their proposals, and point out that if its not good enough to accept MY anecdotal views, then they can't expect me to accept theirs. Especially if you do this in front of the Minister, it works pretty well.

[rabbi]

As long as the netting,trapping and longlining continues this is all irrelevant..
when you see 30-40 barcod being unloaded off a single boat and 2,3,4tonne of jew sitting in a freezer waiting for trucks it doesnt really matter whether we take 2 or 5 fish..
I used to work next to a co-op years back and the amount of fish being unloaded off pro boats was and is disgusting to any fisho that catches a few fish for their family or whatever...
The only thing that matters is that if we are willing to pay through the nose for our fish at fish shop then it isnt going to get any better..

[Gordie]

The netting and sales to overseas markets has got to be a big factor here. A balance between our professional fishos and the rest of us should be obvious to our pollies. Just keep it for Ausies.

I have fished in northern NSW for the last 50 years, not regularly. Of course the population has increased but the fishing is pretty sad when you look at the whole situation.

We just came back to SE Qld after 10 days in one of your caravan parks, people all around trying to catch a fish, never mind a feed. The general conversation is 'not good'.

I am lucky as I enjoy a bit of photography as well a fishing so I came back with some results, but no plans to go back if the beaches and headlands are barren of fish.

Lets say a quater of the people in the caravan park think as we do and next year don't turn up to shop in your local tackle shop, Spar, IGA, Bakery and have coffee in the great coffee shops, go to the RSL to watch the state of origin.

Not good for the local economy hey, there were already a lot of businesses up for sale where we were.

Thanks for reading fellas.

Gordon

[no chicken tonight]

I love fishing and love eating fish. I encourage people to get out on the water and catch a feed, and release what they are not going to eat. The neighbours and extended family can go catch their own fish in my opinion.
What makes me sick though, is people who still engage in these "freezer filling missions"! Your argument about the "wife at home alone with the freezer full of fish" is pathetic. I highly doubt anyone has ever been convicted in such a case.
The only other thing I can say is, Im glad we have such small bag limits in QLD, if it mean it keeps your kind away!
Some will take offence to this, so Ill add this is my opinion and Im entitled to it!

[banshee]

The new proposals are bullshit pure and simple.Five snapper per licenced rec while commercial fishermen can set and forget traps (nsw is the only state that allows this wa the only other state that traps has to bring the traps in nightly).Two largish school jew only per licenced rec while commercial fishers net many tonnes per night and will be able to keep and market much smaller fish than what is legal for recs.The biggest parcel of bullshit for me is the fact that my licence money has payed to stock the richmond with jew fingerlings.

[Gazza]

Hasn't NSW "already" got an RFL & RFH's ??????????????????????

Live 'n LEARN ...QUEENSLANDERS
live 'n learn jmo

At the same time as announcing this review, the NSW fisheries minister moved to allow commercial fishos to net UNLIMITED QUANTITIES of flathead and (some) other species