New bag and size limits as of today

[Noelm]

The last couple of lines is where we fall flat, "approach with an open mind" most rec anglers simply can't do this, it's all "we want" and that mentality will be impossible to change.

[scottar]

The last couple of lines is where we fall flat, "approach with an open mind" most rec anglers simply can't do this, it's all "we want" and that mentality will be impossible to change.

Which has to change if we want serious involvement in the fisheries process. Any reforms in relation to accuracy of data by involvement will need to driven by (and paid for by) us - recreational anglers. Until then, the best option we have is to offer our support to fisheries science or we will be left with the modelling we have. The opportunities have been made available to various entities within the recreational angling sector. Uptake on the opportunity has been piss poor to say the least. After having met with Matthew and having the process explained to some extent - would further recreational involvement have changed the outcome - possibly not as things certainly are not as rosy as we may like to think but regardless we really don't have the right to complain if we refuse to be involved.

[billfisher]

The last couple of lines is where we fall flat, "approach with an open mind" most rec anglers simply can't do this, it's all "we want" and that mentality will be impossible to change.

What I'm worried about is that next time there is some greenie excess, like yet more marine parks. Then when we try to make a scientific case the government might just tell us where to go based on our past dismissal of fisheries science.

[Lovey80]

The stock assessments don't rely on counting every fish. They use catch rates compared to effort and age and size data, plus a lot of mathematical models. There is a fairly wide error range due to all the uncertainties, but it looks like something needs to be done. Or would you rather a continued downward decline leading to something like the situation in SA where they are contemplating a ban on snapper fishing?

Outside of the Gold Coast Carter data, an area of which has very unique characteristics that should never be used to represent the whole fishery. What evidence is there of a decline?

[Lovey80]

Looks like were back to the below:

The point of sustainability at which bag limits will increase, I have no problem with the boffins showing evidence that indicates that there is a need for the resource pressure to be reduced so that the stock is sustainable ,,,,,,But that would also mean that there would be a point at which the stock would be able to sustain an increase in resource utilisation ( an increase in bag limits ) without a balance in the equation then it is just a social engineering exercise to restrict the access to a resource of Joe Average and nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the resource.


BigE

The real answer is never. The biomass model has inputs that show a continuous increase in the Recreational take because the number of registered boats over 6m increased by an average of 4% per year.

[Lovey80]

We are hardly 'back to that'. When stocks are rebuilt enough to contemplate more fishing the we can consider it - and we are a long way off that. And considering recreational fishing is open entry with no quotas the rec catch can go up even if the bag limit stays the same.

What do you call 4 fish with only one over 70cm per person per fishing day? (assuming you eat them before your next filing day with is more than likely).Weather+Non-Commercial Occupations+Bag Limits are a hell of a quota. Sure it may not be a fixed number but may as well be.

[Lovey80]

What I'm worried about is that next time there is some greenie excess, like yet more marine parks. Then when we try to make a scientific case the government might just tell us where to go based on our past dismissal of fisheries science.

During the MBMP implementation all sectors pointed towards all the fisheries in Moreton Bay being deemed sustainable. It was very quickly deemed by the Bligh government as "fear mongering" as marine parks were 100% about habitat protection and nothing to do with sustainable fisheries.

[scottar]

Outside of the Gold Coast Carter data, an area of which has very unique characteristics that should never be used to represent the whole fishery. What evidence is there of a decline?

As was explained to me today - we may well be still catching our bag limits, but we are using better gear, better and bigger boats, better electronics, more refined fishing techniques and travelling further. I couldn't disagree. I certainly can't fish the way I used to 30 years ago and catch as many fish unless there is a major spawning aggregation in play. Given the advances in everything we are using, we should be absolutely smashing the fish hell west and crooked if indeed there was no decline.

[billfisher]

What do you call 4 fish with only one over 70cm per person per fishing day? (assuming you eat them before your next filing day with is more than likely).Weather+Non-Commercial Occupations+Bag Limits are a hell of a quota. Sure it may not be a fixed number but may as well be.

It's not a quota - did you actually read my post? A quota is a total allowable catch for the sector. The bag limit is just for one day and there is no limit on the number of trips you can do. Also no limit on the number of recreational fishermen participating.

[billfisher]

During the MBMP implementation all sectors pointed towards all the fisheries in Moreton Bay being deemed sustainable. It was very quickly deemed by the Bligh government as "fear mongering" as marine parks were 100% about habitat protection and nothing to do with sustainable fisheries.

They are often justified in fisheries management terms, eg talk of a spillover effect. In the debate prior to the expansion of green zones to 33 % on the GBR we were told that the spillover effect would enhance the catch so much it would pay for the cost of the zoning. Instead the commercial catch just declined by about the same proportion as the zoning.

PS: 'habitat protection' seems odd - are your sure they weren't saying 'preserving biodiversity' was the justification?

[Lovey80]

It's not a quota - did you actually read my post? A quota is a total allowable catch for the sector. The bag limit is just for one day and there is no limit on the number of trips you can do. Also no limit on the number of recreational fishermen participating.

There is a limit. It's called weather. It's called having a job. Having a weekend from that job and have the weather play the game at the same time. having both of those align and 3 or 4 mates also having the time off. Then when all those things align, only 4 fish per person. The way you are talking about it there are thousands of big boats out every day of the year. If 5 fish @ 35cm previously, and then 4 fish didn't work whats to say this will work? They got it wrong the last 3 times, why should we listen to them now?

[chris69]

One thing I do know and that is petrol prices never go down and bag limits will never go up so we have just have to put up with it and that's because were not important enough and that's the way it is and always will be.

Drought on the land means drought on the sea if we have many many years like this ,this will affect fish stocks all the time as well as our increaseing population ,I can see the bag limits decreasing more and more on some species of fish until they introduce a no take.

[Lovey80]

They are often justifies in fisheries management terms, eg talk of a spillover effect. In the debate prior to the expansion of green zones to 33 % on the GBR we were told that the spillover effect would enhance the catch so much it would pay for the cost of the zoning. Instead the commercial catch just declined by about the same proportion as the zoning.

PS: 'habitat protection' seems odd - are your sure they weren't saying 'preserving biodiversity' was the justification?

It came out of their mouths on the tele. It was all about habitat protection because as we had pointed out Fish stocks were sustainable.

[billfisher]

There is a limit. It's called weather. It's called having a job. Having a weekend from that job and have the weather play the game at the same time. having both of those align and 3 or 4 mates also having the time off. Then when all those things align, only 4 fish per person. The way you are talking about it there are thousands of big boats out every day of the year. If 5 fish @ 35cm previously, and then 4 fish didn't work whats to say this will work? They got it wrong the last 3 times, why should we listen to them now?

So at least you have stopped calling it a 'quota' but it's not really a 'limit' either. You don't seem to realise that it's not all about you. The impact is collective and the partication in recreational fishing is going up. As to the weather - we have always had bad weather on occassions - but boats are bigger and better now and with better comunications. Also it not really a case of 'getting it wrong' they are just monitoring the state of the fishery and responding.

PS: Why do you need 3 or 4 mates to go fishing? 1 is ideal on my boat.

[Noelm]

Here is the lack of "open mind" at work, we are arguing whether it's a quota or a limit, or if it's either, arguing about fish stock data, arguing about how that data is collected, or if it's accurate, how the data is used, and still most wouldnt give info to authorised data collectors, we want our "take" regardless of scientific estimates of the available stocks. I don't profess to know the answer, I am not even sure there is a real answer, but, it's in our hands if we allow it to be.