The model used last time was replicated this time but with just a few new data inputs. Last time the models were hammered by all except the Gold Coast charter mob who were pushing for the review. When Fisheries saw that their models for commercial catches showed that the Snapper fishery was stable they quickly declared that data as “hyper stable” and used a different model to get the desired outcome.
The move to start trying to predict the biomass relative to an 1880 virgin biomass is the problem. It’s a problem because they have not even the faintest idea what the current or virgin biomass is. They have not even the faintest idea of what the recreational catch is each year. They don’t even bother trying to work out how many fishable days are in a calendar year. They don’t even bother trying to work out how climate cycles effect recruitment numbers. In reality they don’t care.
Here is is a fact that one of the authors, Mathew will not dispute. If since the last biomass assessment there were zero fishable days, the model they use would still show a decline in biomass. That is an extreme example but it highlights the seriously crap modelling they are using to restrict all of our past times.
The single biggest sticking point for Recs the last time this rock show rolled around was the fact that we all knew and FQ admitted that the data for Rec catches was absolute bumpkin. We asked for catch cards to be implemented so we knew exactly what the data was. It was put into the too hard basket by an incompetent fisheries minister and probably on advise by FQ. Yet that data is by far the single biggest element of the models that try to reverse engineer a figure of the original virgin biomass. It’s all worked backwards.
This is a very important fact that FQ also ignores. Or should I say dismisses. Sure Moreton bay and Gold Coast fishers, both Rec and charter are likely to show a significantly stressed Snapper population. Yet that data, as poor as it is, is given huge significance in the modelling. Sure, the Gold Coast charter data is probably solid. But as I pointed out 7 years ago, even to Mathew directly, there are plenty of reasons to consider those stocks as hyper depleted when considering the fishery as a whole. In the years leading up to that last assessment there was countless accounts of pissed off Recs complaining about GC charter operators doing SFA to put them on the fish and worrying more about fuel burn than willingness to put punters on fish. There was accounts of the close reefs silting up and becoming up fishable.
I doubt anyone would argue that Moreton and the GC has issues with it being so heavily targeted. But I don’t see Mathew and the other authors recommending area specific mitigation. Again, too hard basket. Not only are they wilfully not attempting to suggest it, but they are wilfully using the data for these areas to suggest it is the same across the whole fishery. As you have clearly pointed out, this is not the case. They know this!