Actually read the full details anyone?
Obviously a big ban with a choice between diarrhoea and dysentery in terms of length.. But apart from that...,
Recs able to keep 6 dhuies per boat with no size limit
Charters able to fish spawning aggregations of dhuies with a 12 passenger operation able to retain 24 dhuies.
Spearos able to retain two blue groper each. Good for finishing off spawning pairs I guess.
There were so many ways to better address this situation. If you wanted to maximise pain while minimising gain then this is a good plan. Otherwise it is complete shit. Possibly the worst fisheries management decision I’ve ever seen. And that’s saying something.
Im actually affected deeply by how profoundly stupid and inept it is. The fact our taxpayer dollars fund this sort of creation makes it even worse.
How could rfw be outplayed and misled on this so badly? What is the point of a fisheries dept and ministers office that is capable of this ineptitude? And if we as a recreational fishing community continue to be reactive and blame shift and remain uninvolved rather than try and be proactive with rec industry driven initiatives before the poo hits the fan.... well what did we expect would happen?
i remember a heated discussion with a member on here recently re them catching 18 dhuies in a day because they “couldn’t get away from ‘em”. This extensive ban, sadly, is a little bit of reaping what you sow.
Jackalchub
Posts: 599
Date Joined: 10/03/12
https://ehq-production-austr
https://ehq-production-australia.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/847dfe21ec5ec86427b674cb588018505ab23b64/original/1660697091/ee2a3920e84cea94c7af67424285574e_Recreational_%28including_charter%29_sector_consultation_paper.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIBJCUKKD4ZO4WUUA%2F20220823%2Fap-southeast-2%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20220823T222245Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=3960ebf4ade8c09e03ad53b4e3b589c944a5e6d9e60063c0523cdd335f32635b
Jackalchub
Posts: 599
Date Joined: 10/03/12
Dont think that link
Dont think that link worked.
As stated, The consulation paper from dept of primary industries should be read by all, it has all the information and comes with graphs regarding popular catch months, size figures, catch rates etc from surveys (in my opinion are just a guide, dont agree with the accuracy of all of it).
Some parts I like, some parts I dont.
Have been speaking with a mate that works directly under Don Punch. The Science behind the proposal is that Demersals stocks are NOT declining, however, they are barely recovering either - Stuck at an unsustainable threshold. They also believe we are one marine heatwave/disease outbreak from a total ban for 3+ years.
With the current boating boom, constant electronics advancement also taken into consideration.
Before the abust starts, remember these are statements, NOT opinions.
sea-kem
Posts: 15028
Date Joined: 30/11/09
Don't disagree with any of
Don't disagree with any of those points or have a problem with them.
What I personally have a problem with is the way it's proposed to be managed, the apparent refusal to listen to lobby groups and interested parties with their feed back.
In one stroke minister Punch has put off side all the stake holders in this instead of working with them.
I understand the need for review but this is ridiculous.
I also see there is another stage 2 survey out regarding the Statewide fishery, up north is next on their radar.
https://yoursay.dpird.wa.gov.au/wcdemersal/survey_tools/statewide_recfishing_survey?fs=e&s=cl&fbclid=IwAR1Ksiz5FOyuGnRHifO265wGaaar3coOiphJ_FoRxuGgYaVe5pdsaeRM2ts
Love the West!
sea-kem
Posts: 15028
Date Joined: 30/11/09
Just to add to this, have
Just to add to this, have completed the survey and it's actually worded quite well and gives you an opportunity to comment at the end. I did so and quite strongly regarding Gascoyne and west coast bioregions.
Love the West!
Rob H
Posts: 5808
Date Joined: 18/01/12
Yes correct, they say that
Yes correct, they say that they arent recovering fast enough for 2030.
RecFishWest were not "outplayed" so much as completely mislead.
I attended the meetings, listened to the DPIRD experts.
Jamie makes some great points above.
But you cannot accuse a department of misleading the people, BEFORE they have mislead them, which unfortunately is reactive.
Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...
The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.
Everyone's just winging it.
Rob H
Posts: 5808
Date Joined: 18/01/12
Jamie, can you suggest a
Jamie, can you suggest a better way to have handled this process?
Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...
The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.
Everyone's just winging it.
Jamie-Chester
Posts: 116
Date Joined: 28/07/10
Yes to have presented a
Yes to have presented a United front with simple and effective ideas that were too good to ignore. To have campaigned better. It’s a long list . I tried to post my ideas on here but I can’t make it work for some reason
Rob H
Posts: 5808
Date Joined: 18/01/12
Jamie, I'm not sure why you think this
I'm not sure why you think there wasnt a united front?
That is what we did.
RecFishWest accepted a good cross section of concerned people into a working group including several people you know quite well, Scott Coglan, several tackle shop owners and charter boat operators.
This was open to anyone who expressed a desire to be involved and had a genuine interest.
The group canvassed ideas, ran them past the DPIRD researchers and scientists over about 1/2 a dozen 4 hr meetings.
Came up with a plan and submitted it to DPIRD as they requested.
They sat on it, delaying acknowledging the content for about a month, then without warning came up with the plan released last week.
You can find this submission and read it
Why didnt you get involved as I know you have passionate views on these subjects?
Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...
The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.
Everyone's just winging it.
sea-kem
Posts: 15028
Date Joined: 30/11/09
Rob the way I see that is
Rob the way I see that is it's something you go to the media with, I reckon someone like Liam Bartlett would love to get his chops into. He hates the labour party to start, with a passion.
Love the West!
Rob H
Posts: 5808
Date Joined: 18/01/12
Needs to be a united
Needs to be a united approach, and this needs to be planned, its in the pipeline.
Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...
The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.
Everyone's just winging it.
sea-kem
Posts: 15028
Date Joined: 30/11/09
Roger
Roger
Love the West!
piscetor
Posts: 190
Date Joined: 13/05/16
Its not the labor party its
Its not the labor party its fisheries and they are a law unto them selves and you can bet the CSIRO were involved as well.
Fisheries have more clout that the cops but i still think the proposed ban times are going a bit far and will cost the economy a bit of money.
i dont think Mcgowan goes fishing and unless you want a SCMO type goverment, the ministers call the shots.
Filletmaster
abrohlosorbust
Posts: 99
Date Joined: 08/06/12
Thank you
Rob
Thank you and others that gave freely of their time to assist the process via a working group with Recfishwest and DPIRB regardless of the current state of play.
Is there any where we can find the working groups recommendations and guidance that DPIRB have elected to ignore so that we can see how far removed the proposals in the survey actually are.
I fear the survey is a very strategically created document to achieve someones agenda and very biased to achieve a predetermined result.
Lets look at the Survey
You get to
What and why is 2030 the magical date constantly refered to. Does it matter if we achieve this a year or two earlier or later if the stocks are heading in the right direction?
I note the constant reference to 2030 but what is the plan when stocks get to a theoretical level. Given the lack of credible data presently available re stock numbers how could they possibly determine the recovery quantum and then the revised fishing targets for 2030 and beyond. Im all for short term hurt for longer term gain but feel we will have a moving goalpost/ target which conveniently suits an agenda we dont yet understand.
Getting wet is part of the Fun
Boston Whaler 235 Conquest
selthy
Posts: 296
Date Joined: 27/05/11
Good post, Is there any
Good post, Is there any value in RFW running a concurrent survey that presents fisheries 2 options alongside a third option that either aligns to RFW's submission or alternatively calling for a postponement of the decision whilst the data on recreational catch is independantly reviewed?
The feeling I get from many is that we want to do the right thing, have a sustainable fishery into the future and realise some changes may need to be made. We just want the changes backed by accurate, transperant and appropriate data and the implementation consider the value of recreational fishing on our lifestyles (physical and mental health) and the local economy (small businesses like tackle stores, and holiday towns), whilst being fair for all stakeholders (including recreational, commercial and charter).
Rob H
Posts: 5808
Date Joined: 18/01/12
link to submission
https://recfishwest.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/RFW-West-Coast-Demersal-Scalefish-Advice-and-Recommendations.pdf
Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...
The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.
Everyone's just winging it.
Swompa
Posts: 3901
Date Joined: 14/10/12
Thanks for posting and your
Thanks for posting and your efforts on behalf of the masses.
Personally, I like the tag option. I have personally caught 3 snapper within the region in 10 years and no dhufish or baldies. 10 tags would likely get handed down to my children
Jamie-Chester
Posts: 116
Date Joined: 28/07/10
I did get involved. I met
I did get involved. I met with the ministers office and emailed my detailed thoughts to both rfw and the tackle trade guys. As well as publishing my ideas for a solution 3 months ago. I appreciate your time and effort. I sat in the harvest strategy group previous to this.
Jamie-Chester
Posts: 116
Date Joined: 28/07/10
You can say they were misled
You can say they were misled all you want. It’s their job not to be misled. They wasted your time mate. And their consultation paper was dribble. $1 000 000 of license fees goes to fund them. With a result like this the question is why?
Jamie-Chester
Posts: 116
Date Joined: 28/07/10
You can say they were misled
You can say they were misled all you want. It’s their job not to be misled. They wasted your time mate. And their consultation paper was dribble. $1 000 000 of license fees goes to fund them. With a result like this the question is why?
Rob H
Posts: 5808
Date Joined: 18/01/12
Who is this comment directed
Who is this comment directed to and referring to?
Recfishwest, the Minister or DPIRD as being misled??
Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...
The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.
Everyone's just winging it.
Jamie-Chester
Posts: 116
Date Joined: 28/07/10
Look it was directed to rfw
Look it was directed to rfw but in my defence I’m pretty angry. I also don’t think rfw has performed very well here. The paper that came out of that working group was all over the place - not concise and in the end didn’t offer the numbers needed for a reduction as per the ratified harvest strategy. It also added things that weren’t discussed by the group as far as I know such as allowing spearfishing for demersals during closed seasons. Remember discussing that Rob? Probably not as I believe RFW just added it into the incoherent word salad that that paper was for reasons I don’t understand as it was already too convoluted as it was.
In their defence maybe it didn’t matter what they wrote...but the rambling nature of that paper didn’t help their cause...which is also our cause. For a million plus dollars a year they should’ve done better.
Rob H
Posts: 5808
Date Joined: 18/01/12
Jamie
You of all people, where were you while this was going on?
It's not over yet, but you are smug in the fact you can blame someone else.
You are bitching about what came out, but I'm waiting to hear what you plan on doing beside waving your finger?
Fact is that 50% is what they asked for and 64% is what they are proposing.
We worked with the tools we had, while you appear to have sat back and waited for someone to blame.
Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...
The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.
Everyone's just winging it.
Jamie-Chester
Posts: 116
Date Joined: 28/07/10
Here’s what I did.4 months
Here’s what I did.
4 months ago I published a comprehensive solution package. It’s on the western angler Facebook page if you want to read it. Published it there again yesterday.
i emailed that to rfw and the tackle trade months ago.
i emailed it to the ministers office.
i met with the ministers office directly with both his fisheries advisor and his senior advisor and Nathan Harrison from fisheries.
i wasn’t invited to be a part of that working group. I’m not sure why.
But if I was part of it I would have insisted on a simple solution the dept could not have ignored. I would have called out the convoluted nature of that paper and questioned why things like “allowing spearfishing during closed seasons” was included. Maybe that’s why I wasn’t invited.
We were at 320 tonnes and that needed to be reduced to 135. It was always a greater than 50% cut needed. That should have been explained to you in the working group. The maths were simple.
The ONLY way the rec sector wasn’t going to get this cut was if there was reallocation from the pro sector to the rec. RFW refused to engage with that idea other than with some flaccid VFAS stuff.
What else did you want me to do? Chain myself the to the dept doors?
im not blaming you.
But this result is an abject failure imo.
And that should be obvious.
Bodgy 79
Posts: 294
Date Joined: 04/08/22
I would of thought the
I would of thought the stocks would recover a lot quicker if the pros kept out of the demersals during the current October- December restrictions.I'm south coast so not really affected by this yet (apart from the extra fishing pressure soon to come) Im not against the pros or taking a shot a them but isn't it simple bloody maths
Belly Fish
Posts: 499
Date Joined: 09/03/12
There really is a lot to discuss here
A couple of points for now:
1. If, as has been widely suggested (by Fisheries), stocks are recovering but not quick enough, why such a draconian increase in the length of the closure. Surely doubling the 2 months to 4 months would be enough to accelerate the recovery. I'd even grudgingly accept a month on/month off closure, giving 6 months respite to the demersals.
2. The region is too big to make sense. There is a huge difference between demersal stocks 5 miles around Rottnest to 5 miles west of the Kalbarri southern cliffs, or off Ledge Point. I have been for a while promoting the idea of a Metropolitan Zone....say Gilderton to Dawesville. We need to accept that this is a (comparatively) heavily populated metropolis and the pressure is far greater than other more remote places in the West Coast Region. In a sense its the price we pay for population growth.....this area close to Perth can never return to the nirvarna of what it used to be whilst we allow any fishing....there is simply too many people. But, why not place the heavy lifting here to at least try.
3. The one supporting measure that I find ridiculous is the 1 hook per rig suggestion. Where on earth did they get their statistics to construct this piece of garbage. I assume its meant to stop catching excess fish beyond your bag limit. Using my experience as an example, I would estimate that I would catch a double header demersal once in every 20 times I catch. If you assume that on 50% of these occasions, I don't have a fish yet, that's 1 in 40 times that I might need to release a fish. Then assume (as for Dhufish) that the survival rate is 50%, that is 1 in 80 times that it has a impact. This is so immaterial to the whole recovery conversation is beggars belief that they even came up with the notion, let alone recommended it.
4. The whole question of wrapping every demersal up into one group. Where is the supposed problem?? Is it Snapper....not according to my experience, often they are a pest. Is it Red Snapper...I don't think so. It's really about Dhufish. What about deepdrop species? I get Fisheries don't want people fishing for shallow water demersals at all, but I would think deepdrop species should be excluded.
So much more to discuss, but what is apparent is that Fisheries have lost the plot.
Jamie-Chester
Posts: 116
Date Joined: 28/07/10
Mate it’s about snapper,
Mate it’s about snapper, believe it or not, most critically and dhufish somewhat less critically. Don’t worry don’t make sense to me either.
rac
Posts: 99
Date Joined: 14/02/22
having a metro region that
having a metro region that is managed specifically for the bulk (recfish) of social and economic value of that region would make too much sense for a government organisation....
managing dhufish specifically, another one for the "too hard basket".
davewillo
Posts: 2439
Date Joined: 08/09/16
I agree with the idea of a
I agree with the idea of a metro zone being treated differently. I used to fish Jurien and can't recall a day where we didn't get our bag. I know a lot of people who have it really dialled in that get their bag every time metro too but that wasn't the case for me when I fished locally for demersals.
This idea would also save the towns we travel to fish and the businesses there we support.
PGFC member and lure tragic
Bucko
Posts: 144
Date Joined: 08/05/10
So I just read the link in
So I just read the link in Sea-kem's post.
This other survey is proposing the idea of a 3 fish bag limit state wide, excluding the West Coast Zone obviously.
Maybe its just me, but 3 fish in say Albany or Exmouth seems pretty harsh.
Many of the fish on the south coast are small, blackarse, pinks etc.
They are also talking about removing the size limits on almost every species.
Hows your bag if you bring home 3 x 200mm blackarse?
The south coast has huge areas that are largely unfishable by rec'd due to ramp access, weather, remote locations etc.
This state has gone f**king mad.
Might have to move to QLD, 20 fish per person per day...
crano
Posts: 712
Date Joined: 04/11/09
Rob H
Thanks for all the work you have done for us. Another line of attack may be to contact Paul Murray from the west australian. He writes an article in their saturday edition and it is often calling out WA government bullshit.
I think it is important for the public to read the fisheries report from a few years ago that says the stocks are OK.
Thanks again.