The Hon. Norman Frederick Moore MLC BA Dip ED

Minister for Fisheries

4th Floor, London House

216 St Georges Terrace

PERTH

WA 6000

CC

Hon. Colin James Barnett MLA MEc

Premier

Hon. Eric Stephen Ripper MLA BA, DipEd

Leader of the Opposition

Hon. Jonathan (Jon) Robert Ford MLC JP

Shadow Minister for Fisheries

Dear Minister Moore,

As a recreational fisherman of 42 years and a West Australian voter,
I am concerned and alarmed at elements within the New Recreational
Fishing Arrangements that you propose from October of this year.

 

During my 42 years of fishing, I have always supported and practised
sustainable fishing, and cherish the need to both ensure fish stock
levels of all species and provide the same wonderful opportunity for
new anglers that I enjoyed as a child, and continue to do so.

 

I totally support appropriate conservation measures based on GOOD
data and encourage the government to substantially bolster the
Department of Fisheries(DoF) budget. Thus enabling that department to
embark on a much more effective enforcement. But the latter WILL only
occur if the (DoF)finally receive a massive injection of funds and
resources (equipment and staff).

 

My very deep concerns are based on the following:

 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

As a member of the (fishing/voting) public, I’m unaware of any
opportunity provided by your government/party/department for the public
to make any submissions on this issue. Instead, you appear to have been
mislead by a few conversationalist reports and goaded in to a very
unpalatable/unworkable/poorly thought out and electorally suicidal
knee-jerk reaction. Such prior consultation would have provided for
stakeholder input and ownership and no doubt provided a much more
workable, rational and equitable solution. I would suggest that many of
the elements of this better solution are

covered below. No doubt there are many more.

 

HUMAN NATURE, RESEARCH AND ENFORCEMENT

Human nature being what it is, will always result in a number of
persons within any demographic group exploiting resources and braking
the rules. These people do so, usually out of no or diminished
conscience, a misguided or aberrant (to the larger population within
that demographic) value set or a ‘eureka stockade like mentality’ that
no one can tell them what to do; then proceed to anything but what is
required. Recreation fishers (RFs)  are not exempt from this. As an
avid fishing person, active on a number of fishing forums, I am
convinced that the majority of RFs want to and do the right thing. But
there is, unfortunately and inevitably, a number who do not. Sadly, the
general (often under/misinformed)

public at large often tar all RFs with the same (bad) brush. At it’s
best, this can lead to irrational/unconstructive/poorly targeted
debate. At it’s worst, such misguided public outcry can result in
misconceptions by those charged with

sustaining our fish stocks and actions implemented based on emotion and poorly researched conclusions.

 

For far too long, conclusions on fish stocks and management programs
have been poorly conceived and expedited. Additionally, many of those
charged with conducting such research have embarked with a
preconception often tainted by emotion and feelings. Hardly the basis
for impartial rational data collection methodologies and research
conclusions. One

only has to look at the WCB Creel Survey debate and debacle.

 

I have absolutely no doubt, that all of the forgoing will continue
until such time as this state’s DoF is appropriately funded and
resourced. Only with a comprehensive and effective enforcement
infrastructure and program can we turn the current situation around
without the need for ‘simple’ and extreme measures like closure areas,
which, as you say only shifts the fishing effort anyway. There are many
within the bad element of recreation fishers that flaunt bag limits etc
because they believe they can do so with absolute impunity. Many of
these misguided folk laugh at the rare presence of

enforcement officers from a grossly under funded and resourced DoF.

 

EQUITABILITY

As you are aware, Western Australia has a number of State Government
determined Bioregions. As a Mount Barker resident and RF, I fish from
Albany which, as you are aware, falls within the (state determined)
South Coast Bioregion (SCB). I target many species of fish, both
demersal and pelagic, including Dhufish and (Pink) Snapper. There are
many who feel that

such stocks are under pressure within the SCB. Whilst I acknowledge
that such pressure is far greater within the West Coast Bioregion (WCB)
due to the far greater number of RFs that target demersal scale fish,
the fact remains that

such fish species aren’t restricted to the WCB.

 

Additionally, all RFs, not just those fishing from boats would benefit from better research and enforcement.

 

Therefore, surely it would be more equitable and appropriate to have
a ‘Salt Water Fishing Licence’ for all RFs and to spread the cost of
valuable species sustainment and enforcement?

 

Sure, as a SCB RF, I could sit back and rub my hands with glee at
avoiding the $150.00 p.a. impost, but, to be fair to my WCB
counterparts, I would rather see such impost be on those targeting such
species – independent of the bioregion.

 

Amongst RFs, it is well accepted that 20% catch 80% of the fish,
through more frequent fishing, better use of high end equipment and
greater knowledge and ability to target these fish. The $150.00 does
nothing to address this. With $20.00 day, $60.00 fortnight and $150.00
per annum costs, anyone wishing to target these fish species more than
seven times per annum will pay the $150.00, with the highly likely
outcome that they will fish more often and longer to justify the cost.
Yes; people do fish during predetermined holidays, but many more fish
when weather and marine conditions will allow. So,

in the latter case, the $60.00 fortnight will be of no use and the
$20.00 per day unworkable as a decision whether or not to go fishing is
made late the previous evening when the latest weather and marine
conditions are known. RFs that target these species every weekend will
pay the same as the Mums and Dads that go out seven or more times a
year!

 

ENFORCEABILITY

Even with the (very unlikely) prospect of massive improvements in 
DoF resources and enforcement, I am at a loss as to see how the
proposed rules can be enforced. To say the least, it is completely
unrealistic to expect RFs not targeting these species to avoid catching
them. If the DoF only target such a proposed program at the boat ramps,
then one person on board that boat can simply say s/he caught the fish!
Providing of course that party doesn’t infract species

bag/size limits etc. What determines if RFs in boats are targeting
these species and is such targeting intentional or unintentional?

 

INEFFECTIVESS

Having watched your online ‘New Fish Licences Management Media
Conference’ (2 July 2009) I can say right now that it is NOT as ‘simple
as that’ – RFs will pay the $150.00 (begrudgingly) and it will NOT
reduce ‘the catch’ by the desired 50% that you say is required. In any
case, how can you seriously believe that there will somehow magically
be any sort of accurate outcome relationship between the attainment of
a 50% reduction in RF WCB

scalefish demersal catches? Once again, I cite the 20% RF/ 80% catch rule – and

these RFs will definitely pay the $150.00!  

 

Maintaining a database of boat based RFs will NOT tell you or the
DoF what is being caught, or even what those licensed boat RFs are even
targeting! The only way that such data will be provided is IF everyone
completes a log book and forwards that for data collation. However,
this assumes that everyone will do this, and complete the log books
accurately and

actually send them in. Though I support and practice the current
VOLUNTARY log book program, to expect all boat RFs to do this (though
they should) is NOT realistic. As said by Dr Brett Molony (2 July 2009
press conference video), the

recreational sector data is gathered through Creel Surveys and ‘other methods’

(presumably through the voluntary log book program).  

 

By your video  ‘New

Fish Licences Management Media Conference’ (2 July 2009), you ‘hope
that these measures will get the fishery back into balance’. Given that
you admit further and better research needs to be done – what baseline
are you starting with and

how will you measure the achievement (or otherwise) of this ‘balance’? 
As you have confessed ‘we have no idea on how many there (demersal
scale fish and other species) are’!

 

UNDESIRED OUTCOMES

Electoral Backlash – there is no doubt that the state Liberal
Government will take a major hit on this issue ate the next election.
Simply because there’s been no individual stakeholder consultation and
boating

RFs, (who by the way ARE voters – you seem to have missed that point!) have

been presented with, at best, a somewhat fluffy fête a comple’.

 

Reversal Effect – Your proposal could well see previously
responsible RFs keeping more fish to justify the $150.00 p.a. fee.
Again, it is well accepted that 20% catch 80% of the fish, through more
frequent fishing, better use of high end equipment and greater
knowledge and ability to target these fish. The $150.00 does nothing to
address this. With $20.00 day, $60.00 fortnight and $150.00 per annum
costs, anyone wishing to target these fish species more than seven
times per annum will pay the $150.00, with the highly likely outcome
that they will fish more often and longer to justify the cost.

 

Boat Hire – Those RFs previously hiring boats or booking onto
Charters will now think twice. This will have a negative effect over
and above their business that must already be heavily affected by the
global economic down turn. Perhaps these should be exempt? 

 

Shifted RF Effort and other Bioregion Drain – The closure you
propose (whilst I’m not completely against it) WILL result in greater
pressures on other bioregion stocks and more boaties target the
Scalefish Demersal Species in grounds outside the WCB – where, I might
add, these species

also exist!

 

Fishing Tackle Industry – Any downward shift in RF boating will have
a corresponding negative effect on this industry, also already
suffering!

 

 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS         

Let me once again make it very clear! I am totally in support of
sustainable fishing and fishing stock management. I also support a
broad based salt water fishing licence – IF the money is targeted
correctly, et al, better and more objective research and deployment of
appropriate enforcement resources.

 

I’m also in favour of a ‘species habitat’ driven demersal scale fish boat fishing fee – not one based on one bioregion.

 

Compulsory log books are long overdue.

 

Far greater enforcement with better/more resources and equipment.

 

More research OBJECTIVELY based without preconceived or desired
outcomes or tainted by ‘emotional argument’  or ‘convenient
extrapolation methods’.

 

Yours Sincerely

Colin John MOLLOY

Send him mail to.Send a copy cc - carbon copy) to him when you mail Norman Moore.

Best to send by snail mail. You have one, may as well print two.

 

Hon. Jonathan (Jon) Robert Ford MLC JP Shadow Minister for Mines and Petroleum; Fisheries http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament%5CMemblist.nsf/WAllMembersFlat/Ford,+Jonathan+(Jon)+Robert?opendocument

Electorate Office:...


No. 8, Shop 4

Hilditch Shopping Centre

Hilditch Avenue

Newman WA 6753

PO Box 105

Newman WA 6753

Ph: (08) 9177 8904

Toll Free: (1800) 199 343

Fax: (08) 9177 8917

Email: shaz.fungclarke@mp.wa.gov.au

Email2: dennis.liddelow@mp.wa.gov.au

Honourable Colin Barnett MEc MLA

Premier; Minister for State Development

Address: 24th Floor, Governor Stirling Tower,

197 St Georges Terrace, PERTH WA 6000

Telephone: 9222 9888

Fax: 9322 1213

e-Mail: wa-government@dpc.wa.gov.au

Internet: http://www.premier.wa.gov.au/Ministers/Colin-Barnett

Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
The Hon John Cobb, MP

Party: The Nationals

Parliament House Contact PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Tel: (02) 6277 4721
Fax: (02) 6277 8543

Email: John.Cobb.MP@aph.gov.au

Electorate Office Contact 1. Orange Office:
Location:
1/179a Anson Street
Orange NSW 2800

Postal Address:
PO Box 673
Orange NSW 2800

Tel: (02) 6361 7138
Fax: (02) 6362 3480

2. Cobar Office:
Location/Postal Address:
25 Barton Street
Cobar NSW 2835

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/member.asp?id=AN1